Bibiki

Mediation of Carabinieri

This is just to notify you that I have taken up the request for mediation for Carabinieri, please have a look at the article's talk page. -- QUANTUM ZENO 23:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have submitted my comments on the Carabinieri discussion page. Bibiki (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Carabinieri. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --noclador (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me! It is difficult to make edits that are better sourced than mine. Plenty of good quality refs; you are simply trying to intimidate anyone who makes edits that uncover inconvenient truths. Bibiki (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Carabinieri, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --noclador (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

completely ridiculous and unsubstantiated your comments Bibiki (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Carabinieri

Still, those of the Carabinieri that joined the Italian resistance movement only did so after the war was decisively lost for Italy, and the Carabinieri corps have never fundamentally changed their insignia that were worn while fighting, with distinguished service, on the side of Hitler.

I would suggest that you stop adding this sentence as it:

• is your Point of View supported by no references
• is factually wrong
• is loaded with words to denounce the Carabinieri
• is original research (what insignia change? the reference just points to the Carabinieri uniform page)
• is written in bad English
• is not acceptable to be used in Wikipedia as it not up to basic encyclopaedic standards

I hope you will now refrain from insisting to add this sentence again. --noclador (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

heheh - talk about POV! If you think this is bad English then your English is pretty bad.--Bibiki (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi instead of keep adding what they were not known for, to improve the article can you add what they were known for. Its silly to keep adding they were not know to be part of the resistance (also the ref you add does not support this) we could just as easily add they were not known to have climbed Mount Everest --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Carabinieri, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --noclador (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Carabinieri. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --noclador (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you add defamatory content, as you did to Carabinieri, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --noclador (talk) 04:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit you refer to is certainly not disruptive or a POV. It cosists of factual non-POV statements that are backed by direct references as well as the rest of the content of the article. I will revert your changes and of course see you in wiki-court.--Bibiki (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, lets try to show you the errors in your first sentence: "The Carabinieri are not known to have been part of the Italian resistance movement before the decisive defeat of Italy in WWII, marked by the Allied invasion of Italy in 1943."

• not known: known by whom? known when? is there proof? are i.e. the Army or the Sate Police known to have been part of the resistance movement, while the Carabinieri were not??
• Italian resistance movement: has there even been an "Italian resistance movement" before September 8, 1943?? I don't know of any... do you know more??
• decisive defeat?? the agreed upon landings of Allied forces in Salerno on September 9??? which had the blessing of the king? is that the decisive defeat?

"The Carabinieri corps have never fundamentally changed their insignia that were worn while fighting as part of the armed forces of the Axis powers."

• lets begin with grammar: The Carabinieri corps is singular - so: The Carabinieri corps has would be right...
• never fundamentally changed their insignia? oh, dear the page you provide doesn't talk about the insignia, but about the uniform and things like that the pockets were increased from 16 to 20cm,... no mention of insignia; also the last changes to the uniform in the link you provide are from 1902 and maybe you don't knwo it, but the Carabinieri redesigned their insignia in 2002...

in short: your edit is full of errors, POV, original research, wrong referencing, weasel words,... maybe you should try to find a reputable source that says the Carabinieri really and consciously never changed their insignia and for what reason they never did; plus find a reputable source that says, that the Carabinieri stayed away from a wide and general resistance movement before 1943- good luck with that, as you're the only one who has that believe/idea! --noclador (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand how it may be hard to accept it but here is a lil fact for you: Italy was one of the axis powers and the axis powers lost the war. Don't take my word for it; look it up in wikipedia or even X-pedia where X is whatever. It would be healthier for some Italian people to accept this fact and work towards a new political mentality rather than trying to hide behind their finger. You don't do your country service like that.

Regarding the Italian resistance movement, yes, we agree; there was basically no Italian resistance movement before 1943. My statement does not necessarily imply that there were other Italians fighting against Mussolini and the fascists before 1943; it simply makes explicit the fact that specifically the Carabinieri (as the article is about them) did not fight against Mussolini before 1943, that is before Italy had been decisively defeated. There is no POV here nor any value judgement; it is left to the reader to decide what that means.

Regarding the insignia, the page I'm quoting shows changes in their uniform since 1902 - basically very few. I take it that the uniform includes the various carabinieri insignia like the hat feather for instance or even the carabinieri badge which I suppose you want to limit the discussion to. The uniform design, colors, flags, the feather, etc., are basically the same. I don't know of the 2002 change you're talking about but if you provide a reference to that showing a significant change I will consider it.

Also please try to understand that saying that the Carabinieri did not resist Mussolini before Italy was decisively defeated in the war is not the same as writing about any other random fact relating to what they have not done (e.g. marched naked in central Rome) simply because of context. There is a lot of dicussion in the article already about their involvement in the Italian resistance, so it really makes sense for somebody to come and make explicit the fact that the Carabinieri did not resist Mussolini before then.

Regarding the grammar, which would you say is the grammatically correct sentence of the following two: "the police have shot a gangster" or "the police has shot a gangster"? As far as I know "corps" is treated the same way but, hey, I never said I was a grammar expert. You let me know of some authoritative source and I will change it accordingly. Bibiki (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

1. paragraph - that is a personal attack & implies something utterly false about my person! I demand an excuse!

2. paragraph - so you agree there was no resistance before 1943 and accuse the Carabinieri for not being part of it?? that is like accusing the USA not to have taken part in the Olympic Games of 1892...

3. paragraph - what is the problem with that??? the uniform was designed/grades/insignia were designed in 1902 and not changed, and from that fact you conclude that it must be mentioned that the Carabinieri did not change their uniform since fighting the Allies??? That is a ridiculous attempt to denounce the Carabinieri by you User:Raffaeleserafini. All your behavior displays no good faith, POV against the Carabinieri, incompetence and a disregard for facts. Let me warn you: the next time you add your false sentences to the Carabinieri article you will be blocked! --noclador (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you demand an excuse huh? Sure, here is my excuse: I say what I say based on what you yourself wrote. I mean, you did doubt the fact that Italy was defeated in the war, didn't you? How can this childish behaviour be regarded as service to your country? Or did you mean that you demand an "apology"? I cannot believe that a person as deeply knowledgeable of the English language as you made such an elementary mistake, so I will assume you really did mean "excuse".

Go ahead and block me. Like I said before, let's leave it to more experienced and less personally involved people to decide about this.

I hope you are not very angry. Bibiki (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carabinieri. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 14:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bibiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

noclador is consistently reverting my edits although they are well sourced. Shouldn't somebody check whether he is the Vandal in this case?

Decline reason:

This has no relevance to your actions. In any event, Noclador has not broken the three revert rule by my count, although I will speak to him about his use of Twinkle for this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you Bibiki (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case

It was removed because the arbitrators voted 9 to 0 to reject your request for a case; you can see their comments at this link. I encourage you to consider using one of the noticeboards Casliber links to in his comment, to try and resolve the dispute. Daniel (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Daniel Bibiki (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)