User talk:Calgo
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Please stop....
[edit]Please stop editing your comments after they have been responded to; it makes the conversation impossible to follow. Further, please familiarize with our talk page guidelines; you seem to be mistaking article talk pages for a discussion forum or something of the sort. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- You are also making personal attacks on editors, this must stop. See WP:NPA. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- And other editors's actions don't excuse yours. By the way, a number of schools actually have their students write or edit Wikipedia articles as part of their coursework. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Schools actually have their students write or edit Wikipedia articles? As a joke, maybe! Let's face it...on Wikipedia you can say that Madonna Ciccone is Prince Harry's grandmother! (And, it'll stay that way until someone bothers to re-edit it!) Joke-ipedia might be a better name for this site! Everyone thinks it's a farce. But, it can be a fun farce!
Your edit to Peter Lupus
[edit]iI've reverted it. First, the lead should summarise the article, which doesn't say he's Italian-American. Secondly, we don't mention people's ethnicity (at least that of living people) unless it is clearly relevant (well, we shouldn't, some articles still do). And thirdly it's unsourced, and the only reliable source I can find, [1] says he's Greek. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 07:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
"get in the weeds"
[edit]The phrase (no down in what Sam wrote) is definitely not an insult. Hard to define, here's one [2] explanation. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Calgo, Dougweller's right. The expression means 'to examine the specifics/minutiae'. See this web search.
- Secondly, it was you who came in with the agressive tone in the first place. That's actually a typical rookie mistake, viz. treating Wikipedia as one of those flame war-infested online forums. Re-read your comments if you need a refresher.
- As for the 'ignorant' matter, it's no crime to be ignorant of any specific subject at all, of course: each of us has his area of expertise or relative expertise. But I felt that since you'd taken it upon yourself to 'educate' others about Italian history, one would have expected you to know what you were talking about at least on some basic level, that's all.
- I didn't want to write this on the article's talk page, lest you take this comment the wrong way as you did my former ones and try to begin another round of arguing. I won't cooperate, anyway, and indeed I hope you accept my apology for my use of the word "ignorance".
- P.S. After you have 10 edits under your belt you'll be able to edit semi-protected articles. (See WP:AUTOCONFIRM) Good luck. SamEV (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- P.P.S. Don't make important changes to your comments without informing your interlocutors if you've been replied to. It's a matter of etiquette and good faith. See more at WP:REDACT. SamEV (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
SamEV, I want you to stay off of my talk page! Do you understand that? If you're going to try to "educate" others on Italian history, you might just as well learn, here and now, that the Italian unification gave Italy a king as well as a president. (Not just a king as you'd thought!) You became very aggressive and snide with me for no reason on the discussion board! Your apology is NOT accepted. Now, DO NOT contact me again! If you can't understand this, then, please, have a parent or an older person explain it to you. Ta! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.217.237 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Dougweller, Nice try at helping SamEV, but, NO WAY! We're not severs in a restaurant here. (At least, I'm not!) And, I do not care for your awkward approach, to defend SamEV, with a ludicrous article brimming with restaurant servers' vernacular! The slang, that servers use in restaurants, is not acceptable (or used) in everyday English. Sorry! No dice, Dougie! You're going to have to do better than a sever's "testimony"! Hall of Shame on you, for this one! :-)
- Ok, I'm possibly wasting my time on you. You could have done a search yourself to see what it meant, here's a 'higher level' example, it's use on an official US government page by the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organization Affairs.[3]. You need to make sure you understand what phrases mean before you start attacking people on the basis of your lack of understanding. Sam's response above is polite, intelligent, and clearly well meant. Your response is anything but civil. Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise and that means we have to work together. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Dougie...You ARE wasting your time! (On possibly everything "Wiki" that you do!) You left a sever's testimony for me! I don't like SamEV and I'm beginning to not like you! Kindly do the same thing that I told SamEV...Stay OFF my talk page! You're NOT welcome here!
- I'd sort of gathered that. I don't know why you are so bothered by the fact that my first example was that of a 'sever' (sic), since my 2nd was from a high ranking US Federal official. Never mind. But you need to read WP:NPA also. I hope that you are aware that personal attacks can lead to your being blocked from editing (oh, the irony, those of us with the power to block editors are sometimes called 'janitors'. Hopefully, that won't happen. The best way to keep me from returning here is to be civil and cooperative, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Dougweller, Okay, I can see that you're not going to respect my wish. The "attacking" was done by SamEV. (Whether you're ever going to admit it or not.) As mentioned above, he claimed that the Italian unification gave Italy a king, not a president. I proved to him that the unification gave Italy both. He further claimed that Spain ruled Naples, Sicily and Sardinia during Columbus's time, and he sent me about five Wikipedia articles that he said would prove it. (And called me ignorant!) I did not care to look at his articles, as he might have changed them deliberately for his own self-serving needs. So, instead, I went to Wikipedia's "Italian Renaissance" article, and I found it stated that during the Middle Ages (1300-1499), Naples, Sicily and Sadinia were ruled by the Arabs and the Normans. This seemed more on the right track to me. On Monday, I borrowed a book about the Italian Rennaisance from my local library. In truth, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia were governed mostly by the Arabs and the Normans during this time. Spain was involed in it with the Normans. The Norman kings and queens were marrying Spanish kings and queens, in these parts of Italy, and future rulers included second and third generation nobles who were born on the Italian peninsula. All said, Spain had a bit to do with these parts of Italy at that time. It's generally accepted that the lion's share of it all belongs to the Arabs and the Normans. SamEV's gross exaggeration about Spain ruling these areas, at that time, is a sad reminder that people who edit on Wikipedia are not always using the exact truth. Now, regarding SamEV's attacks. I was raised, in what I believe, is the correct way. The majority of people agree, that calling someone "ignorant" is offensive and insulting. (Dictionaries often point this out.) Unfortunately, there exists a minority of people, who, with mean-spirited intention, will call people such names, and, then, hide behind a false angelic face of well-meant wisdom. I don't buy this type of mentality! SamEV, says above that "it's no crime to be ignorant". Well, he, himself, was ignorant when it came to some Italian matters on this website. I wonder how long it takes to become a "rookie", like SamEV, himself, on Wikipedia. Pertaining to the vernacular...I'm not interested in slang (or attempts to verify it)! In the future, I, like many people, will prefer to go to the library and search for a good book on the topic I happen to be interested in. This website has that "too many cooks spoiling the soup" feel to it, and in most cases, the articles are not accurrate. The librarian, I spoke to on Monday, had this to say: "Oh, Wikipedia? It's a joke!" 'Nuff said!
- My instinct is proven correct: I didn't want to reply yesterday on the article's talk page because I knew there was a big chance of the dispute's flaring up again (despite my intention to not "cooperate" in that) and I wanted to spare that page the spectacle.
- Also, Calgo, a "rookie" is a beginner, and there's nothing insulting about the word.
- Now look. I'm *very* willing to respect your wish that I not write on this page. But only *if* you refrain from attacking me behind my back. I'm willing to walk away from a needless conflict, but I refuse unilateral disarmament in this case.
- I said over there that during Columbus's lifetime half of Italy was under Spanish rule, more precisely the rule of Aragonese dynasts. I said nothing of the Middle Ages and Arabs and Normans. (But in fact, Aragon began establishing itself with the War of the Sicilian Vespers in 1282, in the thick of the Middle Ages [by which time Arab and Norman rule was no more, btw]. Look it up in any library.) I referred stricly to Columbus' lifetime. He lived from 1451/52 to 1506, at the transition from Middle Ages to Modern Era.
- "Italian Unification" is normally understood as that period that ended in 1861 or 1870 (1861 unified the vast majority of the Peninsula, but Rome and its surroundings had to wait until 1870; certain other areas came later still) with the creation of an Italian monarchy ruling the vast majority of what is now Italy. You chose to the end of WWII as the end date of Italian Unification: but not at first! You changed it after having used the date of 1860 (want the diffs?) and claiming that in that year Italy got a President. You made the switch because I pointed out your error (Italy got a King, not a President in 1860-61). Admission and good-natured correction of your error would have been the proper course, but instead you chose a meaner path.
- I referred you to several articles and their sources. (BTW, you can review their edit histories and find out whether it was I who added the relevant info.) You want me to return here with outside sources? I'll debate Italian history with you, civilly, if you want.
- I know, I know: you want me to stay from this page. Then quit attacking me and twisting my words behind my back and I will. That's a promise.
- Lastly, if this encyclopedia is such a joke, then why don't you: a) help improve it, or b) stay away? SamEV (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
April 2010
[edit]
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Blueboy96 12:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)