Talk:Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana

I have made the rollback of this page because the page has been remarkably enhanced by me.

I am an expert about Italian nobility and also about the various books of reference about the italian aristocracy.

I think that would be very better to translate this page from the italian version of WP: the italian version is very more correct and, of course, is located in the Italian version of wikipedia

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuario_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana

The page, in italian version, was blocked because, in Italy, there was an anonymous (which is the same man that wrote here, in en.wikipedia, a fake italian noble I think): this man continually go to repeat and put into the page the incorrect & inaccurate informations about this book (in this book also this fake noble wasn't published, of course).

See http://ip-address-lookup-v4.com/lookup.php?ip=109.115.30.211

The anonymus user use the same or similar ip .......

In Italian version the block of page was decided by various admin, after a very very long edit war started by this fake italian noble, or duke, as you prefer (for more info see "wiew history" in italian version and the big lot of nickname banned users: really the same person, of course!). For more info see

http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussione:Annuario_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana&action=history

--Contebragheonte (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Aren’t all ‘Italian nobles’ fake under the republican constitution? Ian Spackman (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not. But what does this affermation with the updating of the genealogical data of the descendants of noble families recognized during the Kindom of Italy with statements like this above? Well let it out for future reference. Bye bye --Contebragheonte (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying. Would you try repeating it in Italian, please? A presto. Ian Spackman (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to say that you are astray: the "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana" are a mammouth books (8400 pages, A4 format) about the italian genealogical and historical subjects. Only in this book you can found the update genealogical information about the descendants of the noble italian families, families recognized in her nobility status and titles during the Kingdom of Italy and put in the old "Elenchi Nobiliari Ufficiali della Nobiltà" published in 1922, 1933 and 1936, but not only. The Annuario isn't a book on gossip or about the vanity. I will suggest only the reading this book before describe it and write about it. I think that my old page of description (17 February 2011), despite my various error in englis language, is much better than the page now online--Contebragheonte (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You suggest that I read it—but only one British academic library seems to have a copy.[1] It’s the British Library, and I could go there next time I am in London. I would go there if I thought it could offer sound, sourced, historically accurate information (updating Litta, who in this case is apparently unreliable), on Ermes Visconti, on his wife Bianca Maria Gaspardone, or even on her second (and better known) husband René de Challant. But if it is an academically respectable text, it seems very odd that the university libraries of Oxford and Cambridge haven’t got a copy—not even one of the 19th century editions. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The annuario is a encyclopedic genealogical work, in italian, very expensive (920 euro) because is very large and very complex.

If you want the recent edition of this work I suggest you that you can found some copies in the OPAC (online catalogue of the public italian libraries).

In the online catalogue of the public italian libraries you can found some copies of these two series, also of some copies of the 2006-2008 edition. See: http://www.sbn.it/opacsbn/opac/iccu/avanzata.jsp and paste "Annuario della Nobiltà" in the strip "Titolo" and push "Avvia la ricerca".

I think if you do request from these two libraries (Oxford and Cambridge), they can buy a copy. I have seen a copy of 2006 edition in the Library of Congress (Washington, U.S.A.).--Contebragheonte (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notabilty

Judging by the website linked, this covers only 5 Italian noblemen. Of these, despite the article’s claim that it concentrates on ‘noble families, still living in Italy’, three of them are dead. To which one might add that, if they are still living in Italy, they are living in a country where noble titles are not recognised. Now, if this were a serious update to Pompeo Litta’s work—one where I could find something reliable about the Ermes Visconti (consignore di Somma Lombardo, as far as I can make out) who was executed in Milan c. 1520, then it would be an admirable thing. But this, without WP:RS to support it, looks like vanity publishing. I hope I am wrong. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have understand: in this link are listed website linked only the few persons that make or have collaborated with the Annuario della Nobiltà. The men and women described in the Annuario della Nobiltà are about 1.000.000 (very are dead, of course): but I ask you a question: if you don't have precise information about these books because you write about it? Now the voice is very worse and now also in cancellation. I don't speak with those men who aren't documented before writing about any question. bye bye --Contebragheonte (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I misunderstood. But what can the book tell me—what can you tell me, as I assume you have a copy—about the aforesaid Ermes Visconti? And what does it have to say (properly sourced, preferably) about his wife’s lineage? Certainly Bianca Maria Gaspardone was born into the nobility (Bandello was mistaken), but what title exactly did she have? Is this the sort of book which will have that information? Ian Spackman (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I speak French, not English or Italian. I can read, but I don't speak or write very well English, Italian & Russian. You speak French? I can answer your questions in French or Spanish. Writing in my user page and I'll answer, not on this page: wikipedia is not a blog--Contebragheonte (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear: I can read Italian, and some German (my class at school were unusually taught German rather than French) but can only write English. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have a copy of all books. I have bought only the volume III of the 2006 edition and the volume IV of the last edition (2010).

But as I wrote to you: why have you modified my version of this page without knowing the details of these books?

Anyway the description of the book now on-line is very incomplete and full of error--Contebragheonte (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

unjustified changes & rollback

Because the user Ian_Spackman :

1. does not justify his rollback on this page

2. This page has changed by this user without knowing the books, books that he has never seen, as he wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annuario_della_Nobilt%C3%A0_Italiana

3. has admitted he had never read these books

4. does not respond to my requests for clarification about this rollback also on his user page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIan_Spackman&action=historysubmit&diff=415730902&oldid=410922061

I restored the page as It was before the first of the changes by Ian Spackman: I also kept the warnings about this page

I'm tired. In the future I will not make other changes on this page, bye bye.--Contebragheonte (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

fake

please be aware: the repeated insertion here made by user "Contegragheonte" are fake, spam, self-promotion, self advertising, in the intent to promote a complete different new publication holding the same name of the historical one. The user is the editor of this new publiction, and the same as the user "Torean - capricorn" that inserted [here] a lot of fake informations to try to discredit what he see as the rival publication. Please patrol those two voices. Thanks.--Ersormarchese (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am extrememly unhappy that this page appears to be little more than advertisement for what seems to be a "vanity directory" published for profit [2] using Wikipedia as a reference. Theoretically, at least, all Italian titles are now meaningless, however, those who would historically have been able to claim nobility are all listed very comprehensively in the Libro d'Oro. I say nothing about the "Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana", I'm sure it's very interesting, as are those who wish to be in it. Giacomo Returned 18:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, Giacomo! Please, help to patrol the "lIbro d'oro" voice. thanks --Ersormarchese (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

some Facebook pages are taken automatically from Wikipedia. Before writing you should read up and know ..... --A curious reader (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not really worth bothering about. Titles are all pretty meaningless to most people nowadays, and those that want them, or to fete them, will be as happy entertaining a nouveau or bogus title one as a real one. If one is an aspiring society hostess I'm sure this book will be very attractive and useful amongst the bought by the metre leather bound books in the salon. However, people "in the know" don't need a book to tell them who is who and most people not "in the know" could quite rightly not care less. Anyway, it's quite amusing think of New York hostesses fawning over the grand-offspring of Naplolese fishmongers. Giacomo Returned 21:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You go really badly because you don't know any about these publications, the historical relevance and the importance. Is a waste of time write here. Goodbye, but forever ! --A curious reader (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually as the user --Ersormarchese write that Torean-capricorn is the publisher of the Annuario (?!). I think it's fair to say that the Ersormarchese, or the user 109 ....... as you prefer, that modify pages is the owner of a genealogical site already expelled out countless times from Italian wikipedia:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Wikipedia:Cloni_sospetti_di_Orazio_e_Clarabella

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Pirillo

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Ninni_Svampa

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Antonio_Gargiulo

After a long work as troll this user, identified as a troll in the Italian WP, as requested, have received the anonymization by the administrators: however, as he insists to associate names and users do not think it's fair to silence what has already happened in Italy.

In Italy he had vandalized the same articles: see the history in italian WP:

http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annuario_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana&offset=20100801015604&action=history

http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana_(periodico)&action=history

et caetera

This men is angry because the Annuario della Nobiltà didn't published his fake predicates, with the ducal title, title and predicate that is owned by Sambiase Sanseverino's family AND LEGALLY PROTECTED. Really current Italian law protects the peerages "predicates ": such example is "San Donato" is protected by law and also on WP any person cannot endorse such a mess !! --A curious reader (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

troll at work. The fake duke. Er sor marchese, Larastabata or 109........ as you prefer !

This page is constantly being vandalized by (redacted) alias Larastabata alias etc. as revenge because he wasn't published in the Annuario della Nobiltà. The Italian version of this article is much more complete. This men has even canceled some posts in this page. I reported these facts to a Wikipedia administrator and I have restored the posts cancelled by (redacted). --Contebragheonte (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Adhominations

…will impress nobody here. It would be helpful if the two people accusing each other of being fakes (ducal or otherwise) were able to mount arguments less easily characterised (and ignored by the rest of us) as such. In the meantime I’m reverting the page to what seems to me to be the least bad version to date. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree whit the user Ian Spackman: this is the least bad version to date--Larastabata (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting from you a justify your "Unjustified changes & rollback" as shown above on 26 February 2011. But I think it's an illusion after all that has been written get objectivity about this subject here --Contebragheonte (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you find non-objective about the current version? Clearly it is not promoting the current publication in the manner that some previous versions have. But neither does it denigrate it, does it? Ian Spackman (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I have bought and read these books and really in this current version I find a lot of errors but not non-objective infos current version

Ohhhh he BOUGHT ....! please! --Larastabata (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Some examples of mistakes in the current version:

1. The Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana (Yearbook of Italian Nobility) is (not "was") a genealogical publication on noble families. This current edition is, as declared on the frontispieces of the series, the second series of the book originally founded in 1878.

Totally UNTRUE! This is exactly a fake assertion. How a book can be the same after ... a century (oh, sorry, it is not a century it is ...98 year later !!!!) please!--Larastabata (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is also necessary to add "AND notables families": It is a matter of fact that in this books the fourth volume (V part) is devoted to old notable families (and you can found only families with coat-of arms and palaces and marriages with others important noble families etc.: similar to the U.K. gentry)

Here I TOTALLY agree! Should be better to make fully understandable that this NEW ANNUARIO ha very few to do with real nobility ... I'll make this correction! DONE--Larastabata (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

2. "resident in Italy". No, this is a wrong affirmation because in these books there are over 1.000,00 families that have today a residence out of Italy.

I'll make this correction! DONE--Larastabata (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

3. "founded in Pisa in 1878" (NO in the 1879 year) because the 1879 year is really the year of ther first edition, not the year of the foundation.

Oh my God! 1878 instead of 1879: this is a VERY BIG MISTAKE to amend! Anyway, I'll make this correction! DONE--Larastabata (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

4. "A century later the S.A.G.I. ...." : no, it's wrong: the second series of this book was established in the 1998 year, not "A century later". The first series was end in 1905.

Oh my God! Oh My God! Not " a century later", I agree! It is 98 years later! --Larastabata (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

5. It's not a "new publication with the same title" but the second series of the same publications founded in 1878, as declared on all the books on frontispieces and as was catalogued by all libraries in the World.

Totally UNTRUE, once again! This is exactly a fake assertion. How a book can be the same after ... a century (oh, sorry, it is not a century it is ...98 year later !!!!) please!

6. Isn't really that "This new Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana has been published irregularly every two or three years" because this book is published regularly every three years as I can read.

Untrue. Publication has been irregularly--Larastabata (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

7. "it lists about twenty thousand families". Isn't correct: the families are 48.000,00 !

Ohhhhhhhh! How many! This is very indicative how this book published REAL NOBLE FAMILIES in Italya ... 48.000 families = the large majority of family living in Italy ... ALL NOBLE! TODOS CABALLEROS! Anyway, I made the correction, DONE! --Larastabata (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

8. "structured in seven main parts.[clarification needed]": you can found the clarification on the bibliographical information on my old versions of this article.

9. "The latest edition is the thirtieth, dated 2007–2010". Isn't correct: the latest edition is the XXXI (31) edition, dated December 2010, not the thirtieth edition. Please note that the last edition is the XXXI edition (as is printed on the frontispiece of all book) only if we consider also the first (old) series of this book from 1878 to 1905 (editions I to XXVII or 1879 to 1905).

Very funny! After a century (SORRY only 98 year! :D) he marked a new book with nothing to do whit the historical one as the XXXI ... insteod of say the truth, that this new and completely differnt publication is now on his fourth (!) edition! --Larastabata (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

About the mistakes I think that in this list there are at least the most egregious mistakes. Anyway there are a lot of omissions. --Contebragheonte (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I made the correction of the REAL mistakes.--Larastabata (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired of having to discuss with this Larastabrata or (redacted), or his sockpuppets.

Any user can see his behavior and his vandalize also on this page (see revisions & cancellations).

It is very offensive and a work by a real troll.

This men is really a troll already noted in the Italian Wikipedia, a troll that had vandalized these same articles before the block by two italian WP admin.

However, before contributing to articles on any topic is necessary to know the argument.

This is the voice about a book series: I hope that the others users that had wrote about this article have read these books. But it is very improbable if I see the posts above published.

But I don't waste my time again.

Anyway my best whishes of not finding other troll like this on others genealogical or heraldic articles on Wikipedia, especially about italian heraldry & genealogy and, to this troll, my best whishes about his fantastic dukedom !

Bye, bye --Contebragheonte (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good! don't waste OUR time again! bye bye dear baronebragheonte (ma tanto torni, perchè ti conoscono tutti, "caccialavolpe e caccialavolpessa...).--Larastabata (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• You do not need to go: you will be dealing with at least one less of his sockpuppets in future, User:Ersormarchese. I too an unhappy at some of the information being added to this page and will be watching Libro d'Oro very closely indeed for any similar activity, as this can be more easily referenced and checked. I have a strong personal feeling that Wikipedia may be being used for advertising or self-promotion here, but I am not sufficiently interested to rush out and buy a copy of Annuario della Nobiltà Italiana to check it all out. One thing of which I am sure, is that every republic always has a larger percentage of nobility than it ever did when a monarchy. One thing that should be mentioned, I think, is that while it was the custom in many European countries (except England) for the all the sons aand daughters to adopt the style of their father (often with a Christian name prefix) to indicate that they were not the holder ot the title - it was not strictly correct for them to do so, and it was certainly not correct for this custom to descend through the generations of the younger children. The also rans are simply "Nobile dei Marchesi di XXXXXX" if they are that bothered, they are not Marchesi themselves. The title goes from father to eldest son only, in almost (if not all) aristocracies. Giacomo Returned 18:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Giacomo,

In the future, if you wish, I prefer write you privately so we do not raise the usual aggressive troll-reaction.

It is like to a nonsense about the stop of a only sockpuppet (Ersormarchese) because the strategy of this troll is to create a lot of sockpuppets, as he did on WP Italian: on Italian WP is now blocked on sight, after creating hundreds of sockpuppets during last years.

The old Italian Kingdom, ruled by Savoy, about the noble families had a very peculiar situation: it is was a Kingdom of very recent formation (1860 ca.) that had officially incorpored, in his old peerages, also some titled and noble families from the others Old Sovreign Italian Peninsular States (like to Papal State, Kingdom of two Sicilies, ....). This was only possible after the long works and lists compiled by Consulta Araldica (an official ministerial office during the Kingdom of Italy): unfortunately this works was very long and complicated and, to the end of the Kingdom of Italy, only after about 70 years, this immense works wasn't finished and was very far to be end.

In this way there are, also today, in Italy a lot of very old and authentic aristocratic families that wasn't approved by the last Kingdom of Italy, often only because these title of peerage come from others old italian States or foreign Thrones (such as Imperial Throne) and only for lack of time or other reason (like to political adversion to Savoy's ruler, poverty, indifference about their old peerage title, ....).

Only today, in the second series of the Annuario della Nobiltà, there is a systematic tentative of census of these families, cataloged and published totally free in several distinct parts of this work, as I explained and integrated in a old version of the article, version now canceled by Larastabata / others.

Unfortunately, in this historical situation, in Italy many false noble are able to pretend and show, and use titles that historically haven't.

Only few good books are the reliable guide on this complex matters.

Unfortunately in Italy there are also a few bad guides: on these publications any family is often published only after the buy of some copies of these books.

But fortunately in Italy there are also some serious and reliable guides and reference books about the genealogy of the peerage. The more complete is the Annuario della Nobiltà and on this book...... "our friendly", the fake duke ......, failed to get published....

But our friendly fake duke was able to be published on the last edition of the "Libro d'Oro" (only on second part, similar to a purgatory on paper for many real noble, almost noble, non-noble or aspiring to be noble italian families .....).

Now I have explained the reason because the polite "duke" try to delete the infos about the Annuario from the WP.

The noble titles grant by Emperors (peerage of the H.R.E.), or by Popes (such as Count) was often bestowed to all male member of a family (also on female as Countess) but, sorry, this speech is too long.

I can only suggest to read a copy of the last edition of the Annuario della Nobiltà. Or read the copy that was bought by a few of the principal National Public Library in the various Countries (like to the Library of Congress, British Library, Biblioteca Nazionale of Rome, Bibioteca Nazionale of Florence, Swedish Royal Library, ..... ) --Contebragheonte (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The best reply to this lot of nonsense, has been ALREADY told you by Giacomo himself. Gacomo's citation: "I'm afraid, if you are not in the Libro d'Oro, you are bogus and Wikipedia is poweless to change that - so pack it in. Giacomo Returned 18:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)"

I think that here intentionally Larastabata have confusing the Official Books of the Italian State called the "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana (Golden Book of Italian Nobility) always manuscript and today in the National Central Archive in Rome

http://www.archivi.beniculturali.it/ACS/GuidaFrazionata/dest9main.html#CONSULTA_ARALDICAPRESIDENZA_DEL_CONSIGLIO_DEI_MINISTRI

with a private publication of the same name.

Please read this note of explanation about the official and unofficial (private) "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana":

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana_(periodico)

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana_(registro_ufficiale) --Contebragheonte (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yuour assertion are a pack of nonsense. The truth, is exactly the opposite: Fortunately in Italy there are also some serious and reliable guides and reference books about the genealogy and the peerage. The more complete, the historical one that has been REALLY PUBLISHED FROM MORE THAN HUNDRED YEARS!is the Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana and on this book...... "our friendly", the fake baron aka "Contebragheonte" aka http://www.caccialavolpe.it ......, failed to get published.... Of course, because he is a fake!

But our friendly fake baron aka "Contebragheonte" aka http://www.caccialavolpe.it was able to be published on the last edition of the NEW (have nothing to do with the original one) "Annuario" (only on very secondary part, volume 3 or 4 (!) similar to a hell of fake noble, on paper for many real noble, almost noble, non-noble or aspiring to be noble italian families .....).

That's is very easy to understand: our friend fake baron aka "Contebragheonte" aka http://www.caccialavolpe.it acting only in revenge against the only serious publication, the Libro d'oro, and try to denigrate it in WIkipedia (he already did it on Italian Wikipedia as "Musa Heraldicana" user and many sockpuppets) and to "elevate" the Annuario! But, it is not enough for him! Thinking and thinking and thinking .... he got a great idea: why not INVENT a NEW Libro d'oro? So he can put himself in it, of course! And so, he invented the ridiculous okus-bogus-fake-ridiculous "Regio Libro d'Oro" (!!) everyone can check it here: http://www.caccialavolpe.it/index.php?p=regiolibrodoro

No further comment! --Larastabata (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, really no further comment: it is impossible write here if some admin don't stop immediately this troll named Larastabata. I don't want to come down to his level. I don't understand why many user here insulted this books and without having seen all them. I can only understand that Larastabata is very hungry against the Annuario because he, his "titles of nobility" and his family wasn't published in the Annuario. Goodbye forewer, as I wrote --Contebragheonte (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have explained (privately) to an Arbitrator, Risker, the problems and impossibilities of Wikipedia trying to rule on this, and trust that she will relay this to the Arbcom and checkusers. I think you would all be best advised to simmer down before you are all blocked for edit warring. If Wikipedia was forced to take a standpoint (and you all seem hell bent of forcing it to do so) it would have no option, but to take the stance that the Libro d'Oro is definitive because that is the only accredited source. It may not be as inclusive as some nobles would wish, but it's the only way to prevent fake nobles having pages. Personally, I don't see why any person (in any nation's peerage) deserves a page just because he holds or claims to hold an heriditory title, but that that's not my decision. Giacomo Returned 12:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: there are two repertories titled "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana" , one is official register of the Italian State, the other is only a private publication.

All people can now see the difference between these two repertoires:

* In order to see the cover of the official register of the Italian State named "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana"AND the comparison with the same name book, that really is only a private initiative you can see this link:

http://www.caccialavolpe.it/index.php?p=forum_araldica and the discussion on 21.10. 2010 ore 11:36 (photos of the covers of two Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà: in brown is the official register, in bleu a private book)

* Instead, in order to see the cover of the omonimous private publication also named "Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana" you can see this link: http://www.caccialavolpe.it/index.php?p=forum_araldica and the discussion on 19.10.2010 ore 19:01 (photos of the cover Libro d'Oro, private publication)

Dear Giacomo I'm still waiting your documentated reply to your assertion posted above: "the Libro d'Oro is definitive because that is the only accredited source" on 12:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC). I repeat: who gave you this information has confused the two repertoires. Thanks --A curious reader (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh my God! Lord and Lady cacalavolpe once again! please stop fake baron aka "Contebragheonte, aka " A curios reader", aka "Musa Heraldicana" (in Italian Wikipedia) aka cacalavolpe aka fake baron and your ridiculous new "Regio Libro" at http://www.caccialavolpe.it! --Larastabata (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"the Libro d'Oro is definitive because that is the only accredited source. It may not be as inclusive as some nobles would wish, but it's the only way to prevent fake nobles having pages." I totally agree with you, Giacomo.--Larastabata (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I require precise sources about this incredible news posted by Giacomo "the Libro d'Oro is definitive because that is the only accredited source. It may not be as inclusive as some nobles would wish, but it's the only way to prevent fake nobles having pages." This is really interesting news !

But I, however, after 40 years of study about and on heraldry and genealogy, I've never read this news or some similar infos.

Now you must specify the sources of this information (bibliographic and/or documentary) about your unsourced assertion about the Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana that, as you wrote, was individuated (by you?) as the only accredited directory about the italian nobility.

Thank you very much. I'm waiting yours precise answer. --A curious reader (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Here is my precise answer: I could not care less if you are the Mario, Duke of Chianti, or Mario, Winetreader of Chianti, and neither could anyone else. It may have escaped your notice, but titles are not recognised in Italy. Now, the Italian aristocracy very much exists and they very much enjoy each others company, and they all know each other. They are not concerned with Wikipedia's view - they don't need it, they know who they are. No Italian aristocrat would ever be bothered by being excluded from Wikipedia. In fact, most would be horrified at the thought. This is my last pontification this ridiculous matter. Giacomo Returned 19:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

*I asked where you have taken this news: "the Libro d'Oro is definitive because that is the only accredited source. t may not be as inclusive as some nobles would wish, but it's the only way to prevent fake nobles having pages.

Answer this question and points out that, as a men had written above, the "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" published in Rome from 1910 to today by the Collegio Araldico has nothing to do with the official register entitled with the same name "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" compiled by the Consulta Araldica that was an official office of the Kingdom of Italy ..

Today, titles of nobility aren't recognized in Italy but instead are protected by the Constitution of the Italian Republic the "predicates" of the titles already approved by the monarchical State and entered into the true official register entitled "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" from 1896 to 1946 year.

Also the various coat of arms approved by the Kingdom of Italy and described into this true official register entitled "Libro d'oro della Nobiltà Italiana" are protected also today by italian Laws as the moral heritage of the Families and these right can be protected with legal action, also today in the Italian Courts. --A curious reader (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

"the Libro d'Oro is definitive because that is the only accredited source. It may not be as inclusive as some nobles would wish, but it's the only way to prevent fake nobles having pages."--Larastabata (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Before write about any subject I suppose that any person has a duty to inform themselves well about the subject.

I think that the only price to pay is, here, the ignorance when the same ignorance wants to teach. But, of course, this is only my thinking

Sorry, but really I think that your behavior in those days, dear Giacomo was often very negative about these articles and, in the end, you haven't explain anything but it is end only in a statement, "Libro d'Oro is definitive because that is the only accredited source": but you haven't explained the reason and the source of this assertion even after my precise request ! This is absolutely not correct under the WP policy --A curious reader (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

" the Italian aristocracy very much exists and they very much enjoy each others company, and they all know each other. They are not concerned with Wikipedia's view - they don't need it, they know who they are. No Italian aristocrat would ever be bothered by being excluded from Wikipedia. In fact, most would be horrified at the thought!. Now I start to be really worried ... why I so strongly agree some of your point of view, Giacomo ...? :=) --Larastabata (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

some arbitrary cancellation of my posts

on the Discussion pages please you cannot cancel any post, do you have understand (redacted), Larastabata etc.? Thanks --Contebragheonte (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

cancellation of other users discussion

don't erase other users contribution, fake baron aka http://www.caccialavolpe.it: are you able to read english language?

troll at work The fake baron. Contebragheonte, Musaheraldicana or www.caccialavolpe.it........ as you prefer !

troll at work: user "A curious reader" aka "Contebragheonte" aha "Torean - capricorn" etc. etc. is a fake baron (check http://www.caccialavolpe.it); he hate the Libro d'Oro because, as he is a fake noble and the Libro d'oro is the only historical and reputed pubication about the real Italian nobility, the Libro d'Oro ever refused to publish him. In a stupid revenge, he vandalaze the "Libro d'Oro" voice and, on the contrary, he try to "advertise" the "Annuario" because, as a non-serius publication, it - the only one! - published him as a fake pubblication. In try to concince that is the same historical "Annuario" that HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED SINCE 1905 (!)

And the most ridiculous is that he try to "invent" a "new" okus-bogus-fake-ridiculous "Libro d'oro" named "Regio Libro d'Oro" to put in it ... himself (!!!) once again check here http://www.caccialavolpe.it/index.php?p=regiolibrodoro --Larastabata (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

As a result of a request on my talk page, I have now reviewed the edits of users involved in this page, and have discovered two sets of sockpuppets. They have all been blocked, and all but one indefinitely. It appears they have been importing a battle from Italian Wikipedia to this page, and possibly others as well. As these users have dynamic IPs, I will be semi-protecting both the article and the talk page for a period in the hope that we will not have a repeat of the same behaviour. Risker (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Hans Adler 05:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A very sad episode drawn to a satifactory conclusion. Giacomo Returned 06:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)