User talk:PIO

nationalist

Please stop adding nationalistic/provocative rhetoric relating to Tito on pages of Istrian_exodus, Foibe massacres. You have yet to provide any credible evidence. Furthermore, your additions are extremely POV (see Wikipedia:POV_pushing), which go against the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Thanks --Zivan56 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignorant and vandal! Stop it!--PIO 14:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked for 24 hours because of this personal attack: [1]. Do not do that again. Thanks. --Dijxtra 15:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are calamitous administrator!--PIO 14:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you are blocked from editing you might like to review the policies we have on personal attacks and civility. - FrancisTyers 15:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody insult me, i give somebody an answer! Take it easy! Ciao,--PIO 15:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --JFred 04:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian user you are totally political POV! Stay quite!--PIO 16:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maiuscole

Pio, in inglese tutti gli aggettivi di nazione (Italian, Yugoslav, etc.) vanno in maiuscolo. Non è come in italiano. --Ilario 19:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisazione

Dopo aver letto un po' dei tuoi interventi non ho molto da dire. Spero che ti venga definitvamente bloccato l'account il prima possibile, sei il classico esempio di utente che rovina la reputazione di tutti gli italiani che contribuiscono a en.wikipedia.org. GhePeU 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La mia risposta è qui. user:PIO

...

Ciao, PIO; potrei darti un suggerimento? sii un pò più guardingo, anzi discreto, nel editare gli articoli, almeno per scongiurare problemi non necessari con altri utenti e quindi potere concentrarti su ciò che è importante: collaborazioni positive ed informazioni precise e basati su fonti attendibili. Certo, io comprendo che talvolta nel calore della polemica ciò è difficile (e certo anch'io ho avuto qualche problema, tu sai bene perchè l'hai letto: ma vedi, l'ho superato a poco a poco, diplomaticamente), però il conflitto generalizzato è raramente utile, e spesso controproducente... Se vuoi includere qualche altro punto di vista che manca in un articolo, per esempio, la migliore soluzione è prima di tutto cercare una fonte scientifica attendibile, preferibilmente non un sito internet. Se la fonte è solida e rispettabile, non ha più argomento alcuno per rimuoverla. Per rettificare informazioni sbagliate o qualche altro aspetto del testo, cerca sempre di incorporare il più possibile le modifiche d'altri editori invece di sopprimerle.

(Ti ringrazio la disposizione di sostenere le mie modifiche più controverse e quelle di Ilario, ma per evitare problemi per te e per proteggere l'integritá del articolo, credo che è meglio seguire il procedimento che ti ho descritto.) Un'altro consiglio: litigi ed attacchi personali, anche come giusta reazione ad una provocazione, non sono mai una buona idea. Ti prego di dare un'occhiata qui[2], qui[3], qui[4] e, magari, qui[5] ;) Distinti saluti, E.Cogoy 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian irredentism & chauvinism

Hello; I've read from your notice on Dinko Ranjina article wherein you "accuse" me of "nationalism" etc. Well- I am a Croatian nationalist, that's sure. But, your siding with Italian irredentist interventions in numerous Croatia-related articles (user Giovanni Giove, as I recall) is simply unbelievable: this is not "nationalism", but jingoistic chauvinism of the worst kind that any Croat unmistakeably connnects with Italian territorial aspirations, an, not in the least, with unpunished fascist rampage in coastal Croatian during WW2. And you have the temerity to threaten anyone with blockades of any sort ? I would like to put such kind of behavior on wider discussion. Wiki is notr, I believe, a forum for disgruntled irredentist history-twisters. Mir Harven 11:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lay off Yugoslavia!

I cannot see why you (and other Italians) insist on attacking Tito! Are you aware that the period of Tito's rule was the period of highest economical strength and prosperity in the entire history of this region, that he had the world's most liberal socialist state, a leading nation in the non-aligned movement, that he united the southern slavs for the first and only time in history, that the old Yugoslavia was 10 times more totalitarian than the second etc... Are you proficient in the history of Yugoslavia? Do you know that he was the leader who finally got Italy out of Dalmatia and rebuffed all illegal claims to Istria and the old venetian eastern Adriatic as well as other claims by other nations. I wonder if you hide nationalist wiews under a cover of anti-totalitarianism.

FACTS: - The "big exodus" of Italians out of Istria was a very small affair and was motivated by racial hatred (towards "barbaric" slavs) suddenly turning into unfounded fear. Did you genuinley think that Tito was going to commit genocide against Italians? In 1945? FFS, he had an entire Italian division in his army! - The Italians (if the majority were Italians) killed in the Foibe massacres were fascists and nationalists, and separatists. Are you even aware of your country's CONCENTRATION CAMPS on Dalmatian territory? Those weren't for Jews (mostly), they were for people who said things like: "There are more Croats than Italians in Split." that is a fact from history books. What would you do if say, Germany, smashed your country and then gave chunks of it's territory to Croatia? Than we Croats build concentration camps on your territory and keep there people who were against us. What would you do I wonder to the people who cheer as innocents are being drawn away to die of thirst in these camps? The foibe massacres were spontaneous revenge by the people against their terrorisers (and their supporters). They had nothing to do with the Yugoslav command. I remind you that for Partisans to perform organised killings on a national basis would be riddiculous, since their very foundation is built on the principle of the brotherhood of nations.

Please use non italian reference sources (if you are able to, bah). Since when is Italy the source of historical knowledge? It's documents are mostly incomplete and often biased in comparison to American and UK ones. Believe me, I have read more Italian history books than you possibly could have.

I hope you see your error. DIREKTOR

BTW, AFTER WW2 YUGISLAVIA COULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY PASTED ITALY, IT HAD THE 5th STRONGEST ARMY IN EUROPE. THE ITALIAN ARMY COULDN'T TAKE 200 METERS OF GREEK TERRITORY. IT WAS THE WORLDS MOST COMICAL ARMY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, FAR MORE FAMOUS FOR IT'S RETREATS THAN DEFENCE. :D :D BELIEVE ME, YOU WOULD HAVE A BORDER ON THE RIVER PAD (PO) IF YOU HADN'T COWARDLY BACKED DOWN OVER TRST (TRIESTE). This is military fact. DIREKTOR

Accusations and attacks

Relax PIO, and Read this carefully: A TERRIBLE CRIME WAS COMMITED. MANY ITALIANS WERE KILLED BY THE PARTISANS. I am not a "negationist", I will merely not let you blow this out of proportion. The numbers of victims were certainly below 10,000 (most level headed ITALIAN historians set the figure at 5000) and many of them were Yugoslavs and Germans, in any case this cannot be called ethnic cleansing. Many of the Italians certainly were RSI fascist supporters, responsible for many Yugoslav CVILIAN deaths (much, much more than Italian deaths, this is well known). And finally, if you would like to talk about negationism! why did the Italian government not extradite the Italian war criminals? They were (together) responsible for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS. No, I am not exaggerating, check the numbers, (as I frequently point out) Yugoslavia had 1,700,000 casualties, easily for times that of Italy. WHY WERE THEY NOT EXTRADITED?, if you would like to discuss negationism... That is why I find it disgusting that Italians want to blow out of proportion this crime, that is PUNY compared to the Italian ones commited over a period of four long years (concentration camps, punitive expeditions against whole villages and, indeed, towns, etc...).
Oh, I absolutely adore war. Are you going to declare war on Croatia now? Where would you go during feragosto then?
As I keep saying: ONLY NON BIASED (NON-ITALIAN, NON-YUGOSLAV) SOURCES CAN BE ALLOWED IN SUCH HEAVILY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES.
I reached no compromise with anyone, SINCE NOONE DISCUSSED ANYTHING. DIREKTOR 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor and his many forums

Hi. This message is to inform you that the forumer Direktor is a well know propagandist of tito-style propaganda on the internet. He has been banned from other forums because of his harrassment against italians in Istria and Dalmatia. He has used other nicknames and WRITES ALWAYS IN A SYNCHRONIZED GROUP WITH OTHERS, who support him. He always writes to be of distant italian roots in order to obtain support for his harrassments (he often identifies Italians in Dalmatia with fascists), and writes even to be a "not nationalist" while he promotes fanatically the tito yugoslavia with many lies and deceits. An Italian forumer born in Istria.

Yeah, this is probably "LEO"... Well, I do not work in a synchronised group with others, I was never banned from any forum whatsoever (in fact I do not frequent forums), I do have Italian roots (I stated that on my talkpage far before any conflict with Italian users arose), I have never used other nicks (why should I?), I do not identify Italians in Dalmatia with fascists (my family were Italians in Dalmatia), and I believe Tito was correct in his denouncement of nationalism as a disgusting ideology wich only brings forth suffering (like in the recent Yugoslav wars). That's all, thanks DIREKTOR 20:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIRETTORE ma sparati prima che ti sparino: non credo a una sola delle tue paranoiche fesserie!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.92.29 (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 151.33.89.104 and other IPs in 151.33.*.* are used by PIO. Suspect WP:SOCK. Michaelbusch 16:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you translate all of this italian? I want to see how this is going. Pupster21 Talk To Me 11:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its something like, "DIRECTOR, shoot before they (someone) shoot you: I don't believe a single one of your paranoid nonsenses." DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IPs in 151.33 are used by least 200.000 Italian users; always I sign my comments and I am not suspect sockpuppet!!!! PIO, 15:47 18 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.90.201 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

Please read ARBCOM Dalmatia and post your comments. Thank you. --Giovanni Giove 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAKE SURE TO "WATCH" MY USER PAGE AND TALK PAGE FOR CONTINUOUS UPDATING! :)

learnportuguese 03:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3RR report

Neglected to mention that you are also guilty of violating WP:3RR on the same article. This has been clarified. Note: I strongly recommend that you not edit by anon IP. Since you are using Italia Online, your IP constantly changes, making getting messages to you difficult at best. It is also a violation of WP:SOCK. Michaelbusch 16:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not spread the conflict

PIO, I ask you not to edit the Foibe massacres just yet. I suggest you list your desired changes and we can discuss the issues like two intelligent human beings. If you insist on your version without a second thought to others and if that version is full of radical Italian POV, the edit-war will continue, and I really hope you do not actually want that to happen. What do you think? DIREKTOR 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing without loggin in

PIO, could you please attempt to fix the problems that do not allow you to log into your account? It really makes life very difficult for all the rest of us when you continue to edit under different addresses. The best I can assume is that you are doing this to avoid 3RR, or a block on your main account. Also, if you continue to use IP addresses, I will merely semiprotect the articles you are disrupting, which will allow users above the autoconfirm level to edit it in their own manner. Please rectify this as soon as you can. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another who wanted a "balanced" article about Dalmatia is gone

<Even MarioKempes -who wanted a balanced article- is gone, as he writes above:<Your perspective on this is very limited and the "Dalmatian Englishman" analogy is testimony of this. I'm not about to start another pointless thread of discussion here, and I really have no interest in this article other than trying to keep it balanced. To be honest, I don't think it gets much traffic other than you three or four zealots. I'm gone... good bye. Mariokempes (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)> The group of Croatian nationalists (Kubura, ZenanarTh, Direktor, etc...) got what they want: to have free hands to do whatever they want with the articles about Dalmatia, like this one on Dalmatian Italians. I will monitor every nationalistic Croatian post of these zealots for future referral & complaint to the wiki authorities. Be sure of that, "dear" fanatic Croats.>. Pio, ho scritto il precedente post dopo l'ingiusto "ban" di Giovanni Giove perche' gli articoli sulla Dalmazia sono praticamente alla merce' dei Croati nazionalisti. Puoi aiutare a "bilanciare" un po' la situazione? Grazie.--Cherso (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istrian exiles

PIO, my friend, the list is indeed important; that's why it should be accurate. As our friend Ko'oy has pointed out, for example, "Alida Valli had left the region long before the war". So we need good verifiable encyclopedic sources about this. What I propose is that you bring the names forward one by one and we'll check them together, and when we establish that a particular person was part of the exodus we'll put their name on the list. Is that reasonable? Until then, I'll revert your change. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National sport

Hi PIO, may I ask what reason you have for believing that cricket is not a national sport for Australia and rugby league is? -- Chuq (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy tiger

PIO buddy, easy tiger. Take it easy. And that's an instruction, from me :-). Don't say "POV removed: don't start with this POV-warrior crap again!" because it isn't like that. We should all let the debate run, stick to the talk page, then we'll see. You seem hostile if you make edits like that. I think that you and I can make sense of things (such as the Istria articles) - but it's time to be sleepy bears, not tigers. BTW, I made what I thought was a very good compromise edit [6], good sources, covering every point of view, but it got reverted quickly. Bad luck on me. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian rules football

If you feel that your addition needs to be retained, then please at least rewrite it in a way that actually has some meaning. Your version does not make any sense. While you are doing this, please try to add only verifiable information, keep the content relevant to the section and try to avoid removing references for the facts that are already mentioned. JPD (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the issues on the talk page - so far you have not responded to any of the ponts I have made, but kept making the same nonsensical statements, and including dodgy sources. Do you not understand the difference between the most popular spectator sport (by some criterion) and the sport with the most general interest? JPD (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't even taken the effort to provide proper links instead of Google results. You need to take things a bit more seriously than this if you want them included in Wikipedia. Brittanica is not a source, and we can't make up what a source is saying by picking random words out of it. Phrases like "immense support" and arguments like "it was created in Australia for Australian people [so] is truly Australian national pastime" are pure POV and not appropriate for Wikipedia. I say this even though to some extent I agree with the sentiments! We need to write ina neutral fashion. JPD (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of mediation if you are not willing to talk about the disagreement? JPD (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Australian rules football.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 07:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Mediation

A mediation case in which you have been mentioned has opened here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Australian rules football. Comments are welcome at the article talk page. MBisanz ^talk 06:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piero Montesacro

Hi PIO,

I've noticed your edits to User talk:Piero Montesacro and a number of other talk pages of Italian Wikipedia's users. Please, try to keep to disputes regarding the Italian Wikipedia on that project. Whatever Piero Montesacro and the others may have done on another project is of no concern here. If you persist in bringing personal attacks here, you may be blocked. I have reverted your edits to these talk pages, and I must admit that I found this much like wikistalking, but we all should AGF, shouldn't we?

Happy editing, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only on a second review I noticed the extend of the canvassing. I urge you not to repeat such episodes in the future, and not to use the English Wikipedia as a platform for pursuing internal matters related to the Italian Wikipedia. Future instances of such behaviour will result in blocks. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Albert Kesselring, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. See [7]. Also, do me a favour and stop arguing in Italian. This project is called the English Wikipedia. This is the last call, the next will be a block. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin, you can verify it here. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Il caso Giovanni Giove

Ti rispondo veloce. Innanzitutto, l'utente risulta essere bannato in maniera indefinita, e con una storia non da poco di blocchi. WP:AN/I è conseguentemente un posto inappropriato per discutere su questo ban, è roba da WP:ARBCOM per intenderci. In aggiunta, io non ho mai seguito direttamente il caso e di conseguenza non mi muoverò né a favore né contro l'utente in questione. Sei libero in ogni caso di aprire una discussione presso l'ArbCom, nel qual caso potrò consentirmi di fare un intervento a riguardo, che non necessariamente sarà di supporto nei confronti dell'utente in questione (ma non farci troppo affidamento, ho poco tempo ultimamente, è per questo che ti sto rispondendo solo adesso). In aggiunta, mi permetto di farti notare che it.wiki non ha potere alcuno da queste parti, quindi è inutile aprire una discussione sulla versione italiana che poi ha policies e behavioural guidelines differenti rispetto a queste parti. --Angelo (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Association football

Hey there PIO, your changes to Association football have been reverted. This is because they did not have a verifiable, reliable source. Johann and Sandra on the web is not a reliable source. You need an organisation such as the BBC or CNN etc who quote this. What you add also needs to be legible. Any questions can be left on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, and to re-iterate - your edits need to be sourced by a verifiable third party reliable source and legible as indicated in Woody's message above. I have reverted your latest edit on the same article, because again you have not provided any third party reliable sources plus the content you added unfortunately is not really legible in English.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National sport

Hi, the recent edit you made to National sport has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Association football. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3R warning for National sport

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at National sport. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Association football. 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. Woody (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Conflict of interest by blocking admin. Don't get too excited though, you were edit warring, you did break the 3RR and you didn't discuss the changes on the article talk page even though many editor disagreed with you. I am therefore voiding Woody's block and reblocking for time served plus 8 hours.

Request handled by: Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admin see: WP:AN#3RR request. 3 other users reverted your edits PIO. I will defer to the reviewing admin. Woody (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the block is over you could file a WP:RFC/ADMIN to comment on this administrative action, however although blocking someone you are involved in a edit war with is against policy, this is probably mitigated by PIO posting on the admin noticeboard. Given that you were edit warring, and the block is only 24 hours, I personally am not going to unblock, but won't object if another decides otherwise. Addhoc (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block is only 24 hours but Woody's action is wrong for conflict of interest and because is not violation by me.--PIO (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above for outcome Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PIO, please don't take this the wrong way, but from looking at your recent contributions, I'm concerned about your command of the English language. This edit doesn't make grammatical sense - "the most popular sport in the world for several sources" doesn't mean anything. In [8], there's no way that "It's under dispute: all you can discuss in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Australian rules football#Discussion" belongs in an encyclopedia article. [9] is grammatically incorrect and very much an unhelpful attitude. The same is true for [10]. The changes you were making to the Association football‎ were just nonsense. I don't question that you are making these edits in good faith - that's not the issue. The issue is that they are not good English. I randomly clicked on some of your earlier edits - [11], [12], [13], [14], - and this seems to be a serious issue. I don't know what to suggest other than that it is obvious that there's a language barrier here. The content that you have been trying to add to soccer articles for several weeks just doesn't make sense. I see that another admin has unblocked you - please carefully proofread your contributions and don't hesitate to ask for help with English grammar. --B (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note:Unblocked then reblocked Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Banned user on itwiki, continues to canvass here regarding itwiki matters despite several warnings not to do so.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

because this site is whole in fact with links is possible to read every article in every language: sections in different languages are not in different sites but in the same this site of same encyclopaedia's project!!!! I did not violate policy canvassing here regarding itwiki matters: Snowolf's action is abuse!!!!

Decline reason:

Do not expect wikilawyering to make us turn a blind eye to abuse of another Wikipedia project. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a social networking site - conduct any communication not related to enwiki off of Wikipedia in the future. Mango juice^talk 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If we would agree with your argument, then your itwiki ban would apply here too, wouldn't it? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this block nonsense action by inexperienced administrators!!!!--PIO (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop.

You're acting like a baby. You're getting warnings but don't care about them. You are very lucky that you haven't been banned forever yet. 99% of your edits are in disputed articles, Maybe this says something about you? Guy0307 (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at National sport

You are currently involved in an edit war at National sport. Please remember that such behaviour does not benefit Wikipedia in any way, and in fact you may be blocked for it (especially, but not always, if you have made four or more reverts in 24 hours).

Therefore, please remember: if you are having a dispute with somebody over an article, you must follow the dispute resolution process - that is, discuss your differences with the other parties. Sometimes, that is all it takes: leave a message on their talk page, and come to an agreement civilly and peacefully. Once again, bear in mind that revert warring is not acceptable and you may be blocked for it: you should consider this a final warning on the matter. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,
AGK (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:AGK#Vandal

Hello, PIO. You have new messages at AGK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—AGK (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have posted the same message to several admins. Forum shopping is not a good thing, nor is it civil to call someone a vandal in a content dispute. You have a disagreement - you need to work out your disagreement on the talk page or request a third opinion if you need the opinion of an unbiased observer to help. --B (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude what's the problem? You have been making personal attacks against me all over the places. You have been accusing me of being a vandal even though I'm a more experienced editor that has contributed in getting articles to Featured Article status which has been on the main page. Anyways can you please explain to me why you are calling me a vandal. On the cricket doesn't really matter what I think or what my point of view is. I don't care if cricket is as popular as rugby is in New Zealand. I just edited accordingly to what the ref had said. And what did you do, just revert it giving a summary-"Vandal". Wow explain to me how that's a valid reason. Also please don't go to other user's telling them to block or oppose or advice me, instead how about you talk to me about whatever issue you are having but please do so in a civil manner.--THUG CHILD z 06:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get what your point was, except what AlasdairGreen27 explained. I know sevens is different from just rugby union but it's still a form of rugby union as 12 a side or 5 a side (american) football is still a form of (american) football. And if you really paid attention I did took things in the mediation into consideration and even participated in there more than you I think. And I know the difference between popular and national but for the other sports it just says their popularity in a specific factor like tv, attendance while over the states and territory cricket has a stable popularity with the highest popularity nationally without breaking it up into segments. And the Argentina statement needed to have a sourced for it to stay and have any significance with soccer being so big there.--THUG CHILD z 07:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but please speak english on my talk page as I can't understand Italian. Also you need english sources for english wikipedia.--THUG CHILD z 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Advice

You really shouldn't do that, it doesn't help your case at all. See WP:CANVASS. I'm not even sure that people who are not parties to a MedCab case should be participating in it. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 14:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told him this a million times and blocked him once, but he can't care less (the previous times he was canvassing in Italian). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about using the source you tried to include - it is just a collection of figures collected from various sports federations, with no information about how the figures were derived. The volleyball federation itself is quoted as saying there is something wrong with comparing the volleyball and soccer figures. The other source is fine, but not really relevant. The most followed sporting event doesn't really tell us which sport is most popular (that is the mistake that Fourplay has been making with rugby league). Even if we could compare single events to compare the popularity of sports, it would be unfair to compare a multiple-sports event such as the Olympics (which includes soccer, after all) with a World Cup in a single sport. JPD (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz ^talk 04:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Advice

The Australian Gov source says that the Olympics is the largest event in the world, and that the World Cup is the second largest. It does not make clear what it is referring to, I believe it is a mixture of number of events, number of stadiums etc but I cannot be sure. Do you know what it is referring to? The source doesn't mention viewing figures which is what is written into the Lead, nor popularity which is also in the Lead. The Johann and Sandra site is not verifiable so cannot be used. As always, questions are most welcome on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOCCER IS THE MOST POPULAR SPORT IN THE WORLD.

YOU SEEM TO BE THE ONLY ONE WHO DOESN'T THINK SO. Guy0307 (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here some evidence: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=most+popular+sport+world&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Nearly all of the results in the first page say that soccer is the most popular sport in the world. Also see http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20080219085917AAofhO2 and http://most-popular.net/sport-played-world Guy0307 (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nell McAndrew

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Nell McAndrew do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop and think about what you are doing

I know you are in constant edit wars with another user over Australia's national sport, but please, please, please stop removing other people's edits while you two argue. Twice today I have had to undo one of your edits to re-introduce wikilinks, and numerous improvements to grammar, that you are reverting straight away claiming "sourced info". You have already been blocked at least once for disruptive editing behaviour, and if you continue to pummel away like this, another block cannot be far away. Once again, please have regard for other people's edits in amongst your edit war. - fchd (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Closed

After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

Although you have not violated the three-revert rule, you have nonetheless been edit warring at National sport. Therefore, I regret to inform you that I have blocked you for ~~a week~~. In the future, you need to avoid repeatedly reverting others' edits in this way. If you wish to contest this block, you may add {{unblock|reason}} to your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-looked at your block log and noticed most of your blocks are not for edit warring, so I've changed your block length to 55 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

of course I contest this block because is no violation by me and I follow step by step rules of dispute resolution: all you read this step and other step started by me. I also posted a lot of comments in user talk:THUGCHILDz, user talk:AlasdairGreen27‎, user talk:Guy0307‎, user talk:Richard Rundle and user talk:Ashwinosoft‎: all they are total nonsense POV warned warriors because [this edit] citing in edit summary a consensus version which is inexistent is also nonsense and lier concept. I also reported THUGCHILDz in noticeboard/incidents twice. I also posted a lot of comments in user talk:AGK, or admin who protected article after my request, and user talk:MBisanz or admin who reported these vandalisms by two citated nonsense POV warriors. My action of multiple edits in article and multiple comments to other editors is collaboration despite insults against me: in fact [this edit] and [my comment] is a form of collaboration but if you block me stop also this collaboration. I consider this block against only me a crazy action: maybe do you like other total nonsense POV warned warriors and warned vandals???? I suggest you to consult MBisanz and AGK who know this dispute. I also didn't use sockpuppets. You broke my patience by these crazy blocks and I want to abandon this impossible and idiot projiect which was invented for mental disturbed!!!!

Decline reason:

I will not examine requests made in this tone on the merits. To abandon Wikipedia, simply stop editing. — Sandstein (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bravo, in fact I stopped my collaboration in this crap but you insist blocking me for no reason!!!! This is not free or open site but a water-closet: it's impossible also edit in my user page!!!!--PIO (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIO, what edit do you want to make to your user page? Addhoc (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my u.p. I would like explain reasons of my escape from this site. In fact this projiect is a failure and principal reasons are:

All articles are total empty of original researchs conducted by important scientists who signed their statements
Almost all editors are ignorants who systematically to engage long edit wars with expert editors who obviously don't want to lose time in surrealistic discussions; example: for article national sport I lost 2 months explaining to nonsense POV warned warriors and warned vandals citated above regarding rugby union is by far the most popular sport in New Zealand but they push cricket in every corner
Almost all admins are ignorants who systematically block expert editors
Almost all admins systematically block without technical certainty pertinent sockpuppetry; example: this is evidence because request by a warned vandal was declined; this vandal also removed main characteristic of every national sport
Rules pertinent this projiect are confused and in contradiction; example: you claim this projiect free or open but you systematically ban totally a lot of editors while you can block users during 2 or 3 months at the maximum
You ignore totally contributions of editors when you ban them; example: I was banned in section of Italian language but they to conserve 36000 my contributions of almost 6 years considering also when I was unlogged; in fact I request a payment for my contributions because slavery is a crime in all nations!!!!--PIO (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't request payment. You agreed to the conditions when you edited, they clearly state that no one receives payment for the contributions. Guy0307 (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy0307, I can request a payment with a lawyer and public action because the conditions are systematically breaked by admins who are payed by Jmbo Wales.--PIO (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this as moot since the block will expire on its own in a little over an hour if I do the math right. Please understand that (1) calling other good faith users vandals is not very nice, (2) if you can't convince anyone else of your viewpoint, that doesn't mean then it may be that you need to accept that your viewpoint is not supported by the facts, and (3) repeatedly reverting the articles is inherently disruptive. After 1:06 GMT (if I do the math right), your block should expire - if you are still blocked after that, please make another unblock request and include the autoblock ID in your block message - an admin will have to fix it manually. --B (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that editing on your IP while being blocked is unacceptable, and will only earn you longer blocks, if you continue in this manner. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will abandon this impossible projiect!!!! PIO

Legal threat

Due to your continued incivility and blatant legal threat (see here), I have now blocked you indefinitely. If you unconditionally withdraw your legal threat or once your legal action is completely resolved, you can send an email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org and your block may be shortened to the original length. Until then, this page is protected. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the block completely. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago I posted this request to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org but no answer: may you post this request in correct manner?

To request unblocking: IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:151.67.... Blocking admin: Yamla Block reason: Legal threat, [15] Block originally applied to: PIO Your account name: PIO An explanation of why your block is unfair:

it's unfair because admin Yamla misunderstood my words! I made simply a hypothetical example pertinent my ban in section of wiki in Italian language but not involving section in English language! I have no intention for legal threat against section in English language or Italian language but these sections are different and I never made legal threat against section in English language! This is evidence: I never made legal threat against an editor or admin in section of English language and my words regarding wiki in Italian language were about a hypothetical case which is total inexistent! Regards. PIO, 9 Mar 2008

PIO, saying this is a legal threat: "In fact I request a payment for my contributions because slavery is a crime in all nations!!!!" Guy0307 (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The legal threat was this: "Guy0307, I can request a payment with a lawyer and public action because the conditions are systematically breaked by admins who are payed by Jmbo Wales." Do you accept that this was wrong and that you agree to retract the statement and not make legal threats again? Woody (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have at least partially retracted the legal threat here. Also, he can't reply on this page, because it's protected. He has confirmed that he intends to leave the project, and wants to be unblocked to edit his user page. Addhoc (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected this page now. Onto the topic at hand. Saying that you will get lawyers involved goes against no legal threats. When you were unblocked you have continued to attack other editors who disagree with you and get in a myriad of edit wars. You have not explicitly stated that you will not make legal threats again. Woody (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention employng lawyers: OK or no?
in that answer to warned vandal Guy0307 I considered a hypothetical case pertinent Italian wiki which is out of this section: OK or no?
there are a myriad of edit wars in wiki but responsability is not mine: OK or no?
I intend to request annulment of ban against me because Yamla misunderstood my words: OK or no? Regards, PIO 9 March 2008

That you have said you did not mean the legal threat is a big step forward. You did say it though, hypothetical or not, it was a clear threat to involve lawyers to recompense you for services rendered, which goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. If you can't accept that then you should leave.

You are still uncivil and rude to those that disagree with you. Stop calling Guy a vandal, he is as much a vandal as you are. There are a plethora of edit wars across the Wikipedia, and you have been involved in plenty of them. (Association football, National sport etc.) That you continue to push your point of view against Wikipedia policies such as No original research, civility guidelines and the verifiability guidelines. If you cannot accept that Wikipedia is not a place for original research, then, again, you shouldn't be here.

If you can agree to be civil and talk through your disagreements in a civil manner on talkpages, then I will ask the blocking admin for their input. I will add that if you are incivil or begin edit warring again then I will reblock you. Do you agree? Woody (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and PIO, log in and edit here. Using your IP will result in them being blocked for block evasion. Woody (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woody, your POV is this: Guy0307 is a vandal like as me; but Guy0307 was warned by admins for vandalism and I never: OK or no? I am not a vandal!!!! I am in good faith then you can unblocking me: do you agree? Now I off computer because I am on work.--PIO (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a POV, you are both as bad as each other and both of you have received vandalism warnings, see #January 2008 and #National Sport above. Receiving vandalism warnings does not make you a vandal. A vandal is someone who consistently disrupts the encyclopedia through introducing incorrect information, blatant profanities etc, against the guidelines of Wikipedia. I think you are acting in good faith, i.e. the development of an encyclopedia, but you go about it in the wrong way, against Wikipedia guidelines and policies. You haven't agreed to my conditions so I will not unblock you yet. Woody (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've recieved one Vandalism warning, and I've already apologised and agreed I won't do it again. I don't think PIO is a vandal. I think that he simply can't agree to any version other than his which is a bit of a problem in Wikipedia. If he could agree to the current version (which was agreed by all editors involved except him) then I'd have no problems with him. I don't care about his Legal Threats. And PIO, if I haven't already, I'm officaly apologising for vandalising your user page. Guy0307 (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woody, of course I agree your conditions unconditionally!!!!
Guy0307, I accept your officialy apologising!!!!--PIO (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block duration changed

Ok, PIO, I have changed the duration of the block to 10 days from now, which makes it a two-week block for the current incident. This was agreed with the original blocking admin. This is primarily due to your use of IPs to circumvent blocks. If you agree to not use IPs per the sockpuppetry policy during the remainder of this block, then I am sure that the duration can be shortened, or even it being lifted. I hope you will take this second chance in the spirit in which it is being given. I do hope you will abide by Wikipedia guidelines from now on. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Woody, sure I will not edit evading this block by you but I care to advise you regarding a lot of IPs with initial numbers 151.67 which stay in my area or near it and somebody can edit in involved articles by edit wars: I hope you consider this problem. Regards,--PIO (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely understand that. It is obvious from editing histories usually who is a sock. Woody (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, anyone that's been around PIO has also met LEO. A ghost who never has an account, but turns up in PIO's shadow. I mention this now not because I want to ban PIO - I don't want to ban anyone - but if you want a bit of Wiki excl rather than incl then PIO/LEO is a reasonable start. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O rly?

Another message like this and I contact administrators. En.wiki isn't it.wiki, but education is the same in every language. Regards. --Leoman3000 (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And for policies? --Leoman3000 (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand meaning of free in Wikipedia, pal. Collaboration too. --Leoman3000 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I read. --Leoman3000 (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

1. This is the English Wiki. I understand Italian, but not everyone does. Post your messages in English.
2. Stop calling me a "warned vandal". I am not a vandal.
3. You have been blocked/banned from editing on many occasions [16]. What has caused this?
4. Why do you keep canvassing to get THUGCHILDz banned? [17]? Haven't you heard of WP:AGF?
5. I have tried to encourage you to communicate and participate in dialogue [18]. It's not in your nature to do so. You are a POV warrior.
6. Almost all of your edits get reverted within about 20 minutes. Why do you think this is?
7. When I entered the WP:RFCU it was declined because it was so stupidly obvious that the IP was you. It was considered not worth checking, and it was why you got your latest ban.
AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for I think it's enough. You've started to contribute here because you were banned on the Italian Wikipedia, but what you've done here is attack (in Italian) itwiki's administrators for itwiki stuff, not factively contribute to the *English* encyclopedia. We've waited much more than what you deserved, but you have shown no sign of trying to reform, and you haven't desisted for a minute in your campaign of harassment and personal attacks against other users.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

really I didn't insert personal attacks but I was insulted by other editors!!!! I consider Snowolf a not balanced admin and maybe he is confused.

Decline reason:

Do you really expect me to take seriously a claim that you did not make personal attacks, given that your request is accompanied by more personal attacks? — Sandstein (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Confused, yeah. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if anybody seriously consider unblocking him, be sure to read the whole user history, much of it it's in Italian - told him several times this is the English wikipedia, but he doesn't care. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is a violation discuss in Italian language with who understand this language?--PIO (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is the English wikipedia. But for personal attacks, any language is the same for what I care. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack by me: others attack me!!!! I am a collaborator and I am not a wrangler person!!!!--PIO (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I think you don't consider my good faith and you are prejudiced against me. I ask opinion of neutral admins.

Decline reason:

Yeah, good faith. You already got an opinion of a neutral admin, Sandstein. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Review of block

I have been requested by PIO, via email, to review this block and its merits. I will start by saying I fully concur with these blocks—I issued a final caution to PIO for edit warring in articles, which he proceeded, it appears, to completely disregard. I am very much not impressed by his conduct, and I think allowing him to contribute here would not be, in any way, beneficial to the project.

PIO is a banned editor at the italian wikipedia; the very fact that I can immediately understand why, after less than five minutes reviewing his talk page, is a resounding "no" in response to his request for a block review. Generally, I would prefer to provide a snapshot of evidence, detailing why PIO's conduct is disruptive, and then drawing a conclusion that restoring his editing privileges would have a negative effect on the project.

In this case, I think it is prudent to not waste any further time on this issue, and to skip straight to the conclusion part: PIO, I am declining to unblock you. Please cease contacting administrators on this issue (as a related point, you have a history of forum shopping—again, not impressive), and let it be. You may no longer edit on the english wikipedia. Please go, and find something to do with your time—in response to your attempts to edit here, it's a "thanks, but no thanks".

All the best, in whatever you go on to do.
AGK § 18:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have 2 accounts in it. wiki but wrongly you consider only 1 banned account. Regards.--PIO (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bans are applied to the individual, not the account. If you are banned through one account on itwiki, the other is banned by extension. Anthøny 13:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

I requested review of block via email to arbcom then all you wait response before eventually remove or full protect this talk. In alternative you can block me for 2 months, 3 months, 1 year: is balanced a block during 1 year? But a total ban against this account is detrimental action against project too. I have other 3 accounts in en. wiki anyway if you will ban this account may you allow the sight of my appeal in favour of all democratic prisoners of criminal communist Chinese dictatorship? It's possible? Regards,--PIO (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]