Wikipedia

Talk:Fausto Veranzio/Archive 1

< Talk:Fausto Veranzio
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Ucucha in topic Guinea pigs?
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

article name (Fausto Veranzio vs. Faust Vrančić)

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is getting a bit silly...

  • 03:07, 19 February 2004 67.39.207.225 (talk · contribs) (created article as 'Faust Vrancic')
  • 12:19, 28 June 2005 Joy (talk · contribs) m (Faust Vrancic moved to Faust Vrančić)
  • 01:29, 1 July 2009 Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs) m (moved Faust Vrančić to Fausto Veranzio over redirect: common name in scholarly works)
  • 20:36, 15 August 2009 Kamarad Walter (talk · contribs) m (moved Fausto Veranzio to Faust Vrančić over redirect)
  • 07:49, 16 August 2009 Dicklyon (talk · contribs) m (moved Faust Vrančić to Fausto Veranzio over redirect: stick with the name commonly used in English writings)

A quick Google check doesn't seem to support this change unequivocally (it tells me current 390 hits vs. old 3460 hits) so can we get a proper explanation for this? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lacking any explanation, I'm changing it back. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comparison is flawed in that you did not exclude Wikipedia itself and mirror pages. Google books may well reflect better actual English usage:

We can settle on his neutral Latin name as a compromise, but I fail to see why we should call the man with a name which hardly was used in his life-time if I am not mistaken. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Venetian or Croatian

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Just curious but what's wrong with calling him a Venetian? Wasn't he born in the Republic of Venetia and a Venetian citizen? And if he was, why shouldn't he be called Veranzio then? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

  • "Faust Vrančić"
    • Google - 19,000 hits
      • Google Books - 669 hits
      • Google Scholar - 191 hits
  • "Fausto Veranzio"
    • Google - 1,630 hits
      • Google Books - 650 hits
      • Google Scholar - 75 hits

Whoever renamed the article was not acting in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

More and more invalid arguments. The form Faust Vrančić is used esclusively in slavic literature. --Theirrulez (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
This is starting to get silly. Its 19,000 vs 1,630... even with the Wikipedia title swinging your way. And, as you say, "that creates bias" in the Google test. There's nothing really to discuss. You're starting to contradict yourself. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The comparison above is invalid for several reasons
  1. Any Google search should only include English-language pages, but the search above was done in all languages.
  2. Google Scholar does not allow searches by language, so this search was also done in all languages, and therefore its result is irrelevant, too.
A correct search is this:

Therefore, Fausto Veranzio Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I've been meaning to have a word with you, User:Gun Powder Ma.
In conclusion, and with all due respect, I feel I must say that the Google test and in fact, your entire conduct on this page, are "deeply flawed" as far as WP:SET and WP:MOVE are concerned. Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, unfortunately Google has allowed to let some non-English publications slipped in, but the settings I chose, as you can see, are "pages in English", so correct.
      1. Google books, as the largest online-pool for scholarly works is certainly the single most important yardstick
      2. Google counts irrelevant hits like names of restaurants, enterprises, unrelated people of the same name etc. etc., all of which greatly distorts the real picture of what term is more used in English.
      3. Google Scholar counts should be completely discounted as it does not allow counts per language (lacking this feature). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • So, the real count is:
    • Google Books: Fausto Veranzio (in English): 324
    • Google Books: Faust Vrančić (in English): 242
    • Google: "Fausto Veranzio" -wikipedia (in English): 364 hits
    • Google: "Faust Vrančić" -wikipedia (in English): 3,630
    • Conclusion: The most important parameter, Google Books, yields a 1/3 more hits for Fausto Veranzio, while Google yields ten times more hits for Faust Vrančić. However, as for the latter, since a quick survey shows that on the first page alone 4 out of 10 entries are actually Croatian pages (www.croatians.com/INVENT-PARACHUTE-VRANCIC.htm ; www.croatianhistory.net/etf/et22.html ; www.otokprvic.info/dok/Evrancic.htm ; www.infoadriatic.com/did_you_know_04.shtml), I would argue that the result of Google Books outweighs the Google seach, since the former search is much more reliable and scholarly opinion clearly a more important guideline than the poutpourri of other sites. This follows Wikipedia:SET which holds that A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability, therefore Fausto Veranzio as per Google books (and the dominant historical use).Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are people edit-warring?

Latest comment: 13 years ago74 comments4 people in discussion

Stop. If you guys keep reverting each other, I'm going to have to lock the article down. That won't help anyone, because I will be certain to protect it in The Wrong Version.™ Stop reverting each other, and start adding sourced facts to the article.

Theirrulez, leave the name alone, please. We are not in a hurry, and it's very clear that these reverts are pointless. DIREKTOR, Gun Powder Ma, Koven990, IP editors - Stop reverting now. Blocks will be issued if this crap continues. I won't do it, but I know admins who will. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The RM is taking place on talk, why is it necessary to edit-war over this? As I kept saying, wait, where's the rush?? For some reason Theirrulez singlehandedly "renamed" the article last night (it was night here :). Guys, keep it together... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You reverted, too. That's part of edit warring. If there's no rush, then there's no rush for anyone. Try 0RR. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah well... he started it! :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, won't you come join us at /List of sources? :) -GTBacchus(talk) 17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've just made few and secondary modifications to the GTB version.--Theirrulez (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
What do both of you (and indeed, anyone) think of how the structure is forming? There's a bit of work to do of course, but I think a general shape is appearing. It also appears that people who talk about Dictionarium... linguarum tend to use his Croatian name, and people who talk about Machinae novae tend to use his Italian name. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll certainly join in the listing the sources as soon as I can actually get some time for a prolonged Wikipedia session - I do also have to set some time apart for memorizing bacteria. Its tricky you know, there's billions of them... :)
Please note: User:Kanalesi = User:Ragusino. Ragusino is an incredibly "prolific" sockpuppeteer (dozens of socks), as well as an extremely disruptive account. The fellow just follows me around and revert-wars with me because I reported him :). He's been banned so I do not think he should be allowed to push anything through? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I would instead invite every single sokpuppet, meatpuppet, ghost or wikianimal you want if they want to give an hand in this hard work.. =) --Theirrulez (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, this guy's got a real attitude - he hates me with a passion, apparently, and will revert whatever I write indiscriminately. Plus his English is illegible (that's what gets him caught :). You're not likely to get any actual article help from him.
Btw, I am sorry if I "fly off the handle" here and there. Its just rather frustrating from my point of view: here's the guy from the Croatian town of Šibenik who actually wrote the first dictionary of the Croatian language - and someone keeps translating his name into Italian :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Whenever I see this type of naming dispute - as you know, they're not rare - I like to remind myself that I'd rather see Croats and Italians (or whatever ethnic groups are involved) arguing over names in the Wikipedia than shooting bullets at each other. We're getting somewhere. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 23:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Confucius say, "Make edit-war, not nuclear war." --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Likeing or not we always have to change it in a nationality name dispute? Why we don't remember half a millenium ago neither Italy, nor Croatia existed yet?? This is a damned English used name discussion and it's enough. However, someone by far wiser said once:
"Make love, not war.." - Theirrulez (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. In the words of the poets, "We Can Work It Out". -GTBacchus(talk) 00:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits to discuss

I've just made some small structural changes to the article, and some minor copyedits. ([2][3][4][5]) Are these edits uncontroversial? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Besides, you're pretty much top dog here now - you can edit anything without asking around on talk I assure you. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok for me. I did few modification, and now I like to know what everyone of you think should be the structure of "works" section.--Theirrulez (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to engage in discussion on talk while the User:Theirrulez account continues to edit-war in the article. User:Theirrulez, please revert disputed edits and wait until discussions are concluded. I reverted only the sock edit, being careful not to touch anything you or GTB wrote (i.e. this and this). This was the sock edit, this was the revert of the sock edit. Your edit-summary [6] is entirely fraudulent as an excuse for your continuation of this edit-war.

GTBacchus, I'm hoping you can do something about this. I am entirely and categorically opposed to any kind of change brought on by edit-warring. If User:Theirrulez can simply edit-war his POV into the article like he started yesterday [7], what is the point? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Immediately below, are the comments I had already typed up, and we edit-conflicted. Let me have a look at what's going on. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Here are the recent edits:
  1. Kanalesi made some strange edit.
  2. [8][9] I did something.
  3. Theirrulez reverted Kanalesi
  4. DIREKTOR reverted Theirrulez with edit summary: "Reverting User:Kanalesi as a sock of the banned User:Ragusino." This was apparently an error.
  5. Theirrulez reverted back
  6. SmackBot did something
  7. [10][11][12] I did some more stuff.
DIREKTOR, it appears that you accidentally reverted Theirrulez who had already reverted Kanalesi, per the indefinite block that you mentioned. You did #4 without realizing that #3 had just happened. I've made that mistake before, more than once. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
No, wait. It's more complicated than that. DIREKTOR, when Theirrulez reverted the sock, it wasn't a precise revert. That's why you didn't see the difference when you reverted both of them, thinking that you were only reverting the sock. Is that what happened? Theirrulez, what happened? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Or, if everyone's happy with the first paragraph as it now stands, we can just say "that was weird," and move on, yes? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
To sum up, User:Theirrulez restored a sock edit falsely claiming he had been reverted. He started edit-warring yesterday and now merely continued to do so. While discussions are on the lead version prior to all this should be restored. Otherwise, as I said, Theirrulez has managed to push through his changes through edit-warring (in spite of your warning, I'll add - hence the attempted deception, most likely). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain what the edit is, please, and what you disagree with about it? Theirrulez's edit was not the same as the sock's; he changed what the sock did. Is that true? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you refuse to help with the editing over this issue, the only thing you'll hurt is your own chance to have input. We'll build the article with whoever is willing to work. Do you really want to shut yourself out of that opportunity to have input? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh hell, lets keep it this way! What this discussion needs more than Wiki principles is a little good will, I think. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Good to see you guys I needed to sleep... anyways this [13] is what I did, easy to check trough page history. Is there something wrong, or you don't agree with? let's talk about it. If it's fine for you, let's go on. --Theirrulez (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good thing to discuss. I've just gone through the section and broken long paragraphs into smaller ones. I think that will be helpful for really seeing what's going on in each sub-section, and I think it's good from the reader's side as well. What do people think about the way the section is currently structured? I'm largely okay with it; the only thing I might suggest is that the "Technical research" section be retitled, and possibly split into sub-sections, especially if it grows further. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been able to found a portrait of him! - Theirrulez (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. :) Is it in electronic form, or do you need to photograph or scan it first? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
From an ancient book already scanned by another user. :) --Theirrulez (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Look:
 
A portrait of Faust* V*ran**o from an old book. ;)

He was smarter than how he appears in the picture, for sure. =)--Theirrulez (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The lay of the land

Ok, I know we don't have anything like an exhaustive list, but I think a sort of picture is emerging: Faust Vrančić is noted as an early and influential lexicographer of the Croatian language, who also built and tested the first working parachute. Fausto Veranzio is noted as an engineer and inventor in the tradition of da Vinci, who also wrote a pentaglottal dictionary. Both are seen as a fine example of the Renaissance man archetype.

What does that tell us about naming the article? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Something very pertinent. There are two cultural areas influenced by his work. The first, involving linguistic study and lexicography, is closely related with modern Croatian historiography which usually wants to consider Veranzio one of the first lexicographist of early Croatian[1] language. If Veranzio didn't publish his 5 languages Dictionary his weight in slavic literature wouldn't have been the same. The second area includes science, engineering, architecture, mechanics, design, etc. which made his very popular around the entire world, particularly for his amazing self-testing of a parachute jumping from the San Marco tower in Venice,[2] and for his suspended bridge so surprising similar to newest bridges built in contemporary years. - Theirrulez (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
[1]: The 5th language used by Veranzio in his pentadictionary, the Dalmatian, is usually referred by modern Croatian linguists as an early "Chaktavian" dialect but is better recognizable as "Slavicized Dalmatian" as per what stated by Albert Fortis in Travel to Dalmatia, for example and for what stated in Edward Stankiewicz, Grammars and dictionaries of the Slavic languages: reading his pentadictionary it seems easy to understand he wasn't very skillful in using proto-slavic words, cause it wasn't for sure his mother tongue (as per Johannes Lucius (et alii) in his Historia Trau Spalatro et Sibenico in 1678, Sibenico was on the coastal region of Dalmatia, where (being for long time part of the Republic of Venice) there were most influences by Venetian and Italian language: Lucius said, fifty years after Veranzio's death, to be a "Dalmatin" (similar, but different from "Dalmatian"), a synonymous of "Roman" or "Latin". The "Dalmatins" - said Lucius - were still living in Zara (Zadar), Traù (Trogir), Sibenico (Sibenik) and Spalato (Split). This people -according to Lucius- had his language: the "modern" or "vulgar", influenced by the Venetian but closer to the Italian. According to that, still now, even if Veranzio figure was largerly used in modern Croatian language historiography -every single modern Croatian or Slavic author mentioned his dictionary as a Croatian dictionary- it's widely disputed the pentadictionary's adherence to a fully Croatian structured language.
[2]: He surprised the entire later European Renaissance scolarships when he, 65 years old, jumped off the San Marco tower in Venice (more than 160 mt (500 ft) tall) as per Alfred Day Rathbone, R.M. McBride.
Hm, so according to Theirrulez's very subtle interpretation, not only is a hallmark in the development of Slavic literature not globally significant, but we are also to understand that all his non-linguistic feats "Italianize" the person by their very significance. How clever. :)
Furthermore, nearly every single word of Theirrulez's notes is either manipulative or just plain wrong. I could write an entire article about the nonsense invention of an entire Slavic language, or how the issue of "Croatian or not Croatian" is a red herring as South Slavic languages were not standardized and are very similar - his disctionary was that of the South Slavic language of the time, etc. etc. The simple fact concerning the proposed renaming of the article is that there is no evident consensus in the community in its support.
Without doubt, this person's ENORMOUS impact on the development of no less than four modern languages is by far his most notable achievement today. To place this issue in perspective, I'll add that this article was created under the name "Faust Vrančić" because of this - it is only later that Italian users started to think his name should be in Italian. None of his works have had such an impact on modern society as the development of the languages spoken today by over 25,000,000 people. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I just remarked huge differences by Croatian school about Veranzio and the rest of the World about him. I'm not disputing at all his importance for Croatian lexicography (not literature) but I need to underline that outside Croatia -from USA, trough UK, France, German, Spain, Italy of course, to China (he's well known in China for it's mechanics design, as per sources)- he's by far more important for his innovations in architecture, engineering and mecchanics. This point is evidently crucial to point what's most common English name. I want also remark that Direktor statement about his native name is uncorrect: the only primary sorce today available, the above cited Travels into Dalmatia (a written correspondance -in English- between Abbe Albert Fortis and Archbishop of Londonderry) said he was from Veranzio family, also Counts Verantii (a "Latinism") or in a later branch Counts "Draganich-Veranzio" (note Draganich is not "italianised", as Direktor would say, in the original text of Fortis, because all names are cited as original). Theirrulez (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes he is known outside Croatia, naturally. But its not Croats alone that use the non-Italian name, as is your implication. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article as it is currently written makes it appear that almost all sources use the Croatian name. In particular, there are hardly any sources at all in the "Technical research" section - the only one cited, in fact, is Rough Guide to Croatia. We don't have to convince each other of anything, you see. Just make it clear that the article is written from a preponderance of one type of source or the other, and then it will be obvious which name to choose. Right now, the way the article currently looks, the title is correct as it stands. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfect and pertinet syllogism, GTB. The article has to be rewritten, of course, and it's what we will do if possible, according with sources and, I hope, with consensus. - Theirrulez (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well Theirrulez, you've done a lot of source-gathering for the engineering material, do you want to start working on that section, and DIREKTOR, I think the lexicography section could be significantly improved; lots of claims in there are uncited, and we've got a good list of sources now. It would be nice to track down an actual copy of "Was Faust Vrančić the First Croatian Lexicographer?".

Obviously, anyone add to any section at any time. I'm not trying to set up rules for editing; we already know how to do that. I'll keep looking in and edit as I'm available. I'm a pretty good copy-editor, so if nothing else I can help lookout for minor grammatical errors. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I obviously don't have anything against fixing-up the article and I do intend to follow your suggestion, but if as you say the article title is at this time acceptable in its current form - do you intend to close the RM for now? It is getting a little silly, I mean look at it - its been out there for 17 days straight :P. Don't get me wrong, I'm game, but I think using the RM as incentive isn't necessary for people to contribute? ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess we should close that. Theirrulez, are you okay with closing that request, with no prejudice against possibly moving at a later time? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't agree. I'm sorry. I tried to improve this article without beeing able to do that for an absurd obstructionism by few users. I assisted an undiscussed move then, so i was compelled to submit a move proposal to restore its name. The entire following discussion was marked by unfair (it's an euphemism) behaviour and silly comments about nationality or ethnicity or load of off-topic. I was insulted and accused to be a sock a duck and man-eating worm (cool anways..). Dozen of users already stated their support to the move back as per WP:UE, WP:CN and per sources. Just about me, I personally "wasted" hundreds of hours about this issue.
Now, someone fair and well balance suggested us an efficacious way to solve the question.. not immediately easy to understand, but with a double purpose: to improve the page and at the same time to demonstrate which is the most common English name. GTB said we are not in hurry. I don't feel to be in hurry. The mechanism GTB designed is good, let it work a little bit, it will lead us to the point sooner than we believe. But the mechanism has to be guaranteed. And closing the RM now would mean to take away any guarantee from it. For last, I obviously think the title cannot be decided from the way the article currently looks, on the contrary the title have just to follow most common English use of the name (now clear and convincing evident!) - Theirrulez (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
We can leave the request open for a while then. That's not a problem. I may adjust the date on it to bump it to the top of the list at the Wikipedia:requested moves page, but that might not even be necessary. (It wouldn't affect anything here.)

As to whether the most common English usage is "clear and convincing"... I'm convinced that Theirrulez has put more work into finding sources than others have. :) When we've got a realistic picture of the availability of sources, which is reflected in the article, then the question will be decided by someone other than the three of us, you can be sure. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, GTB, I hope. Frankly, RM should have been closed days ago, a point was reached, but strangely it'wasn't enough. Anyways, you was as good sources-hunter as me, and, as you said, we don't have to convince each other of anything, isn't it? ;) - Theirrulez (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I only hunted down 2 or 3 sources. Most of those were dumped as links by an IP editor, and I just filled in the details. Like I said somewhere above, I'm a lazy, lazy man. (This is why I'm a mathematician: Math is the art of formalized laziness.)

I think you have a very good case to make that Veranzio the engineer and inventor is better known and more written about than Vrančić the lexicographer. Get that into the article, and I'll carry out the move. That's unless someone manages to make a case that the Croatian lexicographer is really the more notable of the two, in English-language sources... -GTBacchus(talk) 03:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

@Er-vet-en: the name "Sebenico" was the name (as per English primary sources) of the modern Sibenik for more than five centuries, it's not at all an Italian name, just historical-used when referring to this historical period. Venice, instead, is the modern English name and the historic one as well. In fact in the footnote is explained "today Sibenik", not "in Croatian: Sibenik". --Theirrulez (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

'Kay, point taken. Er-vet-en (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
"Sebenico" is the Italian name for a Croatian town. The fact that you think its "historic", well I don't think that surprises anyone. As per WP:NCGN - its going down. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Here we can read what was the name of the town, and which was the most common name of the Author, under Austro-Hungarian Empire in the Archiv für österreichische Geschichte, 1847.
Direktor, there's some thousands of tons of sources waiting to be readed by you. So you can see what that time was the name of the town. It's not an "Italian-shape" toponym, it's just a later Latin-derived name.--Theirrulez (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I cited from WP:NCGN: «For example, we have articles called Istanbul, Dubrovnik, Volgograd and Saint Petersburg, these being the modern names of these cities, although former names (Constantinople, Ragusa, Stalingrad or Leningrad) are also used when referring to appropriate historical periods (if any), including such article names as Battle of Stalingrad and Sieges of Constantinople; not to mention separate articles on Constantinople and Byzantium on the historic cities on the site of modern Istanbul - or part of it. It is sometimes common practice in English to use name forms from different language to indicate cultural or political dominance. For example, Szczecin is often written as Stettin (the German name) for the period before 1945, likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig.» - Theirrulez (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It's my impression that calling any particular name of a town "the historic name" is a good way to prolong arguments. The town surely has more than one "historic name" - none of these names was made up yesterday. History that was influenced by one culture more than another will reflect that in its choice of names. Doesn't that seem right? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I underlined it just in pursuit of the best accuracy. I agree it's not a primary matter. - Theirrulez (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I only remarked because it seemed to get under DIREKTOR's skin. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
To make this simple:
  • "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context."
Kindly stop this nonsense. You may rest assured that the Italian name for the town will be removed consistently. I can sincerely say I'm losing patience with this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There is already a clear consensus about the use of the toponym related to that period. Read above, DIREKTOR, you are burning days of hard work. Every single name matches the related source or the related foot note. Please, again, we can't work this way. --Theirrulez (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We most certainly can't. Please find the strength of will not to translate into Italian while you edit. Thanks. (Your posts above unfortunately have no relevance whatsoever to the issues at hand.) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are joking. I can't find any reason for being so disruptive. We are wasting our time.--Theirrulez (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you two still talking to each other at all? We've established that this is completely unproductive. If you really wish to use this talk page to argue with each other, then we're going to have to do something about that. Why are you talking to each other? You already know there's no point. Things with no point: Don't Do! -GTBacchus(talk) 07:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Good question. Well... if we I don't at least try to talk to the guy its down to edit-warring. There are results sometimes. :) Plus I wouldn't just call the above empty arguing? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, ok. I won't come out if favor of edit-warring, so if it's either this or that... I guess I was a little excited when I posted the above. Forgive me; I'm just some guy, y'know? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
As are we all... :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
No need to explain GTB, everybody understood what you mean. And because I'm just some guy too, let's try, guys, to fix some points on which there seems to be conensus.
  1. The structure of the article, should be: leading section - family history and biographycal summary - activity and works as polymath, engineer, architect and inventor - activity and works as linguist or lexicographer - legacy - notes - resources
  2. We must respect sources, we have to develop the article according with them. Sources showed us a hierarchy of arguments, so the same hierarchy has to be followed developing the article.
  3. We can also use "Vrancic" in the article, but we must stick to the sources. When an English sources refers to his family member (for example the brother, Carlo Veranzio) or to his family history (Counts Draganich-Veranzio), we should use names matching the sources, without creating own variation (Carlo → Karlo), or (Draganich → Draganic).
  4. We are editing an article describing historical issue. We should prefer as I explained above, historical name of places and eventual disambiguations or further explanations, should be punctually added in notes not in line.
Add down here any suggestion, and if you agree with the points reached until now. Theirrulez (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is significantly better than it was a few days ago - that's good work on everyone's part. :) Theirrulez, the four principles that you cite seem reasonable; let's see what others think.

I don't know much about article evaluations - what does it take to move from C-class to B-class, and how close are we? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bacchus, User:Theirrulez is (rather ironically) trying to set up his own rules here that would "allow" him to manipulate the text in such a way as to create an image he thinks will prompt the closing admin to move the article. Please be aware of such motivations. As things stand now I see no reason why he should be allowed to bypass WP:MoS and insert two different names for the same things in the same article. These personal definitions of "historical" names are as biased as they are irrelevant.
Firstly, the historical name, i.e. the name used in contemporary sources, is primarily the Latin name (both for the town and the man). Secondly, "historical" names are interesting but are not the issue at all, as per policy. This is something I've thus far been unable to impress upon Theirrulez.
In short, I have returned :). Since the name of the game these days on this weird WP:RM seems to be to insert in the article as many sources that sport your title as possible, then let the games begin.
Frankly, Bacchus, I think you should('ve) just closed the RM since you judged this to be sound. WP:RMs as far as I'm aware are not about improving the article text. I admire your attitude, but the idea that it "shouldn't bother anyone" is rather naïve and optimistic if you don't mind me saying so. It is highly unlikely User:Theirrulez would ever under any circumstances agree to a non-Italian version here. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right that RMs are usually not like this. What we're doing here is trying something new, and improvising. That's how Wikipedia often works - that's how it got to be as big and successful as it is today.

The "game" is not to insert as many sources as possible of a certain kind. The "game" is to actually improve the article, in good faith, via consensus editing. For some reason, I'm seeing a lot of reversions, which is not how consensus editing is supposed to work. I'm also not seeing much discussion of actual edits on this talk page. I'm still seeing you guys talk about each other? Why is that? When has talking about other editors ever improved an article?

What I've seen from looking at sources is that most writers who talk about F.V.'s engineering work call him "Veranzio". If that's not true, then why does the /List of sources look the way it does? It also appears that most sources describing F.V.'s lexicography work call him "Vrančić". There also seems to be more scholarship dealing with Veranzio's engineering than there is dealing with Vrančić's lexicography. If that's not true, then where is all the scholarship that we're not seeing? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What I've seen from looking at sources is that the all the most reliable high level sources call him Fausto Veranzio, quite all English authors refer to him as Fausto Veranzio, every single primary or historic source uses the name Fausto Veranzio. I also see that many Croatian travelguides and several Slavic authors call him with his slavicized name when they describe him as a lexicographer. IMHO we reached a point. --Theirrulez (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that strongly. We've got very few sources regarding his dictionary that call him by his Italian name. However, on balance, there seems to be more scholarship using the "Veranzio" spelling. Unless a lot more sources using the Croatian name are forthcoming, I'm going to recommend that this request be closed in favor of moving the page. (I don't like to personally close requests where I've been quite this involved in the debate.) -GTBacchus(talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we've arrived...

...at our destination. This was an unusual RM, which I realize I completely hijacked to conduct an experiment. I've just posted a comment at the Requested Moves talk page, asking for general remarks on what has happened here in the last week. Anyone from here who would like to comment there is of course very welcome; you may have some insights that can be helpful in future titling disputes.

This has been an educational ride. Thanks. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You was able to wash out this nationalistic mess. Great job. - Theirrulez (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't mention it. I think adherence to WP:MOVE would be more helpful, though. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
All I've done is try to determine which is the COMMONNAME in the literature, per our naming policies. The evidence seems to show that "Veranzio" is more common, but if there is furter evidence for the Croatian spelling, then I hope you'll share it. I'm certainly not moving the page; I've been far too involved to do that. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Incredibly you worked for the Croatian spelling (the less common), this gave evidence of your appreciable impartiality. COMMONAME and USEENGLISH already supported the move to "Fausto Veranzio" several days ago, but what you did is ten thousand times more notable: you push editors to strongly improve the article (they did it!) and the same time you show th pratical application of what means moving an article per sources. Commendable. --Theirrulez (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Your interpretations of policy and notability are as interesting as they are false. Nothing of the above is factual. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you're simply burned by the result so you organise this single-purpose drama just in order to make the issue fuzzy and troubled. I'm sorry to see an user refusing so openly effects of consensus... It's really not fair.. --Theirrulez (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Guinea pigs?

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

I'm going to request admin comment on this. Purposely goading one side against the other in a premeditated "experiment" is complete perversion of WP:MOVE. User:GTBacchus had incredibly intentionally fostered an almost month-long bitter "competition" which 1) destabilized the article itself, 2) caused the involved editors to contribute in a biased manner so as to promote their title version, 3) utterly ruined what was left of friendly relations among involved parties. The admin has done all this without informing the users they were merely playing a "game" against each other, indeed, having been asked about this he denied this was an intentional "experiment". The user has mislead involved editors into believing that adding sources which use their preferred title form is somehow a deciding factor in naming the article itself, while I've yet to find where WP:NAME states anything of the sort.

Having arrived here to close an RM, User:GTBacchus fostered the continuation of the conflict & title dispute with the explicit intention to essentially "force" the involved parties into editing an article. In his own words, he seemed to think that closing the RM would cause people to lose interest, while conflict draws interest [14]. I refused to take part in what I immediately perceived as some sort of weird "experiment".

While that side which wins this surreal month-long RM will surely "praise" GTBacchus' actions, to be goaded and treated as pawns is highly degrading to all involved editors, and intentionally fostering conflicts for whatever purpose is the most un-Wikilike type of behavior I can imagine. This is among the most botched admin interventions I've witnessed in my years on enWiki. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, do you know Wikipedia:Process is important and Wikipedia:Practical_process? I don't think so.--Theirrulez (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: the above post by User:Theirrulez was inserted out of chronological order. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I welcome comments on my actions; in fact, I've requested them as well at WT:RM. I'm sorry that you feel that I hurt the situation, but I'm more sorry that you haven't contributed more to the editing process. The only goal of what I did here was to try and determine which name truly is more common for the subject of the article, per WP:COMMONNAME. There were so few sources in play, and the discussion was so focused on personal nationalistic disagreements that it was impossible to determine when I arrived. Now we have an expansive /List of sources which you can still continue to use to improve the article.

Like I said, I welcome review of my actions, and you can be sure I'll think about what you said. I'm sorry that you're upset, and that you feel that I've acted in a "degrading" manner. That is most certainly not my intention. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yes, as I said I am also interested in the community's response to this mess. Editing the article itself is not part of the move process, nor should it influence its outcome in some way. I am quite glad I did not participate in the "experiment".
@"The only goal of what I did here was to try and determine which name truly is more common for the subject of the article, per WP:COMMONNAME."
This claim conflicts with your "experiment" disclaimer above. In your earlier post you stated:
"Gentlemen, you can sit here and say what modern English sources use, but the point is to show it by collecting reliable sources that use either name, getting them into the article, and then seeing afterward which name seemed to come up more often. The idea isn't to somehow already be right; the idea is to improve the article and then find out which name is more common in our sources."
Improving the article is in fact, NOT "the idea" of a WP:RM. Its your "experiment". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. I tried something new. You say it didn't work out well. You can be sure that I'm taking your criticism seriously. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you please tell me, DIREKTOR, what you are referring to as my "disclaimer"? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Forgive me for saying so, but perhaps you should've informed the involved users that you are "trying something new" (i.e. different from established procedure & policy), or that their almost month-long efforts editing the article text are in fact utterly meaningless with respect to the move process. The appearance is that you were intentionally dishonest to fellow editors in order to manipulate their behavior to suit your goals and experiments, all the while dangling the preferred title like a carrot on a stick. Not to mention that it seems like you fostered user conflicts since you consider argument to be a good motivator. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought I made it clear that I was trying something new. I'll have to look for diffs later; I'm on the phone now. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok. You say, DIREKTOR, that I "should've informed the involved users that you are "trying something new" (i.e. different from established procedure & policy)". Look at these comments of mine:
How could I have been clearer that I was trying something new? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You couldn't. And ad you know wasn't you to keep RM open, but Vegaswikian, relisting it. I'm sorry but Direktor's complaining reflect perfectly his unfruitful approach to this issue. GTB worked with a global support around him, me, Salvio, Er-vet-en, Ucucha, and many other users understood his purpose and his way to lead the mess to a point. With the RM open, every single editor had got the opportunity to give his own contribution, sometimes just adding a source or other times just agreeing on a whatever issue about the article. Keeping the RM open has been a guarantee against some anacronistic rollbacks, or some nationalism-oriented edits, too frequent on articles like this. - Theirrulez (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, "trying something new" is a euphemism. What this is is bypassing procedure and policy in a derogatory and harmful way. What you failed to make perfectly clear in an of your posts is that this "approach" has nothing at all to do with naming conventions, and that it is an "experiment" conducted with the primary purpose of expanding the article rather than moving it. Your stated reason for not closing the RM was that "people might leave"; on this project, if someone wants to participate in an RM and not even touch the article, isn't this their choice? When an admin suggests an "alternative method", one naturally assumes it is at least in some way founded in policy.
On your talkpage you stated that you were holding the RM open to get people to edit. When I responded I advised you to close under grounds that "an RM is no way to encourage article development" [15], you responded with "If I close the RM today, the article will be titled "Fausto Veranzio". Is that really what you're trying to ask for?" [16]. This is little short of "blackmail" (i.e. "expand the article or the move goes forward since the other guy did what I asked and edited the article"). It can very easily be interpreted as abuse of admin status. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR, do you know where our RM procedures came from? People simply made them up. I personally made up, over the last several years, a good chunk of how RMs happen. The "policy" in which RMs are founded, I helped write.

It was impossible when I got here to determine which was the COMMONNAME, and now I think it's pretty clear - "Veranzio" seems to be more common. If we're wrong, then I hope that someone, someday will provide more sources to show us our error. You have declined to put your money where your mouth is, and provide evidence that your preferred spelling is more common in sources. You've declined to edit the article, and chosen instead to argue, first over whether F.V. was this or that ethnicity (which is completely irrelevant), and now over whether the procedure is appropriate. When you fail to back up your words with actions, those words start to sound pretty hollow.

If someone wants to participate in an RM discussion without touching the article, then of course they're free to do that. However, if they claim that one title is the COMMONNAME and then fail to provide evidence for their claim, in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary, then they shouldn't be surprised when a decision comes down in favor of those who actually backed up their words.

Now, I've bent over backwards to ask for review and criticism of this whole episode. It's pretty clear that you think I did it wrong. (Although... the article is still at your preferred title, I haven't - and will not - close the request or perform any admin actions, and I will abide by the decision of whoever closes the move request.) Now, why not wait and see what other people say? Why not? -GTBacchus(talk) 12:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Request for review of my actions, which I hope might lead to some helpful comments. Theirrulez, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I also am certain that I've made mistakes from which I can learn something. That's how this stuff works. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Without GTB patient management, this issue EXTRAORDINARILY FULL OF NATIONALISTIC GARBAGE would have been a cemetery of Wikipedians, believe me. Whateber, the result of the move was clear since GTB arrive, but he chose, as a wise admin, to make clear for everyone why and how the move should have been performed. He worked using academic method and offering his devotion to the impartiality. Every single sources supporting the Croatian name was added by him, just in order to offer a mor clear view of the available sources. I want to say only one think: GTB deserved more respect. --Theirrulez (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all, immediately STOP altering my posts, thanks so much. Second, I would not call it "management" as much as "mismanagement". The fact that this is a complex issue has been impressed upon User:GTBacchus, and it should've been all the more reason to avoid "experimenting" here - but to get in and get out as efficiently as possible.
Theirrulez, are you aware that this article cannot be moved based on counting the sources in the article or by reading its text? WP:MOVE has nothing on this and WP:NOT is perfectly clear ("Wikipedia is not a source"). Improving the article is admirable, but seeing as how you were editing under the impression that this was part of the RM I expected you would at least be a little angry after realizing this. Your work is not lost, but its motivation appears to have been incorrect and "dishonestly implanted".
I suspected this from the start but I wanted to see where was GTB going with this, since I've never seen his approach before. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
And I'm really worried to see you make so many posts I can't even save the talkpage. :) You know full well what was the original title of this article. I'm astonished that you are repeating these long-refuted false arguments here in this thread for some strange reason...? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It's good to try something new. Wikipedia is a developing encyclopedia, and even after nine years it's good we're trying to find the best ways of doing things. I continually do it myself while writing articles.

    On this specific case, one of the most important principles of our policy on article titles is that we follow usage in reliable sources, with a focus on those used in the article itself (WP:UCN). That's a sensible rule; the text of our encyclopedia is based on sources, why not also the titles of the articles? Now, before GTBacchus came here, the article looked like this—with only six sources. At the moment, it looks like this—with more than 26 sources. We have gotten many more sources about this man's life to check, and GTBacchus has concluded (I haven't reviewed the data myself, but have no reason to doubt his impartiality) that the sources mostly support "Veranzio" as the name of the article. It's been a very unusual way to work towards resolution of an RM, but it's a sound way to do things—it agrees with WP:AT's principle of following the sources, and also results in some much-needed improvement in the article itself. (Someone wrote above that improving the article is not the goal of an RM. That's true, but surely it's not a bad thing either.) I hope this method will be used more often in the future. Ucucha 19:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop this drama please

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion
Astonishing. Direktor I'm really worry to see your nationalistic approach can't let you accept the restoring of a page under the right title after your deliberate and undiscussed move.--Theirrulez (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
First there were a wide consensus supporting the move since the beginning. Google test on Books and Scholar stated only one think: to move back to Fausto Veranzio. Then sources confirmed it. Even most part of users supported the move, GTB just ask for evidence. Well he got it.
Finally I would note that wasn't GTB to leave the RM open. It was Vegaswikian to relist it. So I'm sorry if some ultra-nationalistic feelings were hurted, but it's time to stop this ugly drama. Theirrulez (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
And I'm really worried to see you make so many posts I can't even save the talkpage. :) You know full well what was the original title of this article. I'm astonished that you are repeating these long-refuted false arguments here in this thread for some strange reason...? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The only drama maker here are you, Theirrulez . The vast majority of sources uses the Croatian name version!!! All your other theories and one man shows and biblical monologues with which you are trying to disqualify that fact are nothing but disruption! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.29.255 (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I can only reiterate my observation that there are more high-quality, scholarly English-language sources (by a third) using "Fausto Veranzio" than "Faust Vrančić". I still propose that we can use the Latin form ("Faustus Verantius") as a compromise, but if that is not possible, "Fausto Veranzio" is the next logical choice. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
To the IP editor commenting above - can you please visit /List of sources and provide some more examples of this "vast majority" of which you speak? -GTBacchus(talk) 11:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, User:Theirrulez, you seem to be taking all this very personally. I recommend you relax a bit.

@User:Gun Powder Ma. The Google tests were basically ambiguous. "Faust Vrančić" gets more Google Book hits in a general search, but "Fausto Veranzio" gets slightly more when you narrow it down to English (322 vs. 242). However, the narrowed-down English language search is as packed full of foreign language publications as the general search, thus basically invalidating the whole premise of researching English usage this way (in this case). "Faust Vrančić" also gets more hits on Google Scholar (191 vs. 75), and ten times more English hits on Google itself (3,650 vs. 365).
Not to mention that there is quite obviously no consensus for the move in the community. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You and your friendly IP, eve if you tried, you are not very able in manipulating. I'm sorry, the only think we can see is that you was able only to force dozens of users to this mess. Consensus to move was clear since days ago, users already expressed it, google Books ans Scholar show Fausto Veranzio is 3 times more common in English sources so, we just have to wait. And If you want you can go on with the greek drama, it could be interesting.--Theirrulez (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, your post above is virtually illegible. Second, please refrain from personal attacks of the more obvious sort, you will be reported. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
confl.)Direktor maybe you forgot these slurs [17], followed by another attack [18], and preceded by another astonishing attack [19] infamous attacks I received by during this RM.. You obviously forgot.. Well read them again, I posted links just to remind you. 12:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Theirrulez (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
DIREKTOR is correct in saying that we lack consensus. One person disagreeing means "no consensus". However, we've got evidence, which seems to lean in the direction of "Veranzio". If there's more evidence for the Croatian name, then I hope that someone will provide it. Google hits are a terrible measure of anything, and when we have an actual list of actual sources, it's clearly worth a lot more than raw Google numbers.

For whatever reason, DIREKTOR declined to collect sources in support of his position. Most of the work of presenting sources for "Vrančić", I did. Now he's unhappy. I wish, DIREKTOR, that you would just get some other admin(s) over here and see what they say. -GTBacchus(talk)

We lack consensus? One person disagreeing means "no consensus"? mmm you've a too good heart man.. :))--Theirrulez (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
@User:Theirrulez, I'm sorry, but you seem to be continuously out of touch with what we're talking about.
@GTBacchus, try to look at this from my perspective. Here we were told (by a reportedly illustrious RM admin) that we should edit the article in order to determine the common name. And for two weeks, people followed these instructions, argued and even edit-warred, only to be told that the RM was not closed immediately in order to expand the article text, and to receive a "thank you for participating in my experiment, this was an educational experience for me" send-off note. All the while under the false implication that this had something to do with WP:MOVE. If you did write WP:MOVE, kudos to you, but I don't think mandatory expansion of the article will ever be included there regardless of what you may or may not have done. I certainly hope the "Goad the Stooges into Expanding the Article" method will not become popular.
As for the move itself. You may now be sorry (judging from your tone) you did so but yes you did list some of the sources for "Faust Vrančić" as well, others were added by User:Koven. I don't think, however, that after all this and our exchange above your input should be taken as that of a neutral observer, with all due respect. The lists of sources should not be taken into consideration as "evidence" either, since they comprise only those of the hundreds of sources various editors have had time and willpower to painstakingly list there. To my understanding and in my experience insofar on enWiki, a controversial requested move can only be performed if there is clear consensus in the community. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're unhappy with what's happened here. I am certainly not "sorry" that I helped organize and document sources using the Croatian name. I hope that somebody uses those sources to improve the article, someday. There's really nothing more I have to say to you, DIREKTOR. Other people will review what happened here, and someone other than myself will close the move request. I will abide by whatever decision they make. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I definitely stay sitting here until Direktor's drama will end. It's not good until now ;) Theirrulez (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Theirrulez, I think it would be better if you refrain from mocking your fellow editor. There's really nothing wrong with maintaining a tone of respect, whatever else happens. I'm going away now. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I'm sorry you decided to leave, GTBacchus, and I don't believe I implied in any way that I think that's necessary. As I said on several occasions on your talk, your goal of expanding the article is certainly very admirable in itself, but using an RM to get about it under false pretenses is not. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I received too many slurs and too vehement attacks during this RM. I'm a bit tired you know. So let me be hironic to let the tension, that someone created, decrease a little. --Theirrulez (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My advice to all parties concerned in this wikidrama is WP:STICK. Please, drop it. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fausto_Veranzio/Archive_1&oldid=1078396759"