User talk:Dgarq: Difference between revisions

I don't know that Wikipedia needs a complete ancestry of all of these questionably notable Roman historical figures. I also doubt that one person's purported research into his ancestry as reported on rootsweb.ancestry.com can be considered a reliable source. Please consider seeking guidance at WP:WikiProject Ancient Rome before continuing in these lines. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you consider questionably notable Consuls of Rome? And Preators? And Proconsuls? That only contributes to the incompletude of the database. Their names appear in the List of Roman Consuls. Most of the genealogical work comes from Christian Settipani's investigations, as well as other works, including authors like Stanford Mommaerts and Sir Anthony Wagner. Unfortunately, due to the lack of the actual books of these authors, which are extremely rare and almost impossible to get, specially the ones of Settipani, I can't quote them directly. But it would be extremely unfair to discharge its information based in such reductive chriteria. The "complete ancestry", as you called it, is part of the connection between people, and I'm getting tired of all that prejudice against genealogy. If they're related, such relation should by any means be mentioned. Instituto dos Arquivos Nacionais (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't one of notability -- certainly holders of high office in any regime are of note. The problem is one of reliable sources. Since the only source you quote is a genealogy website that isn't peer-reviewed, the information cannot be considered reliable. Again, I direct you to WP:WikiProject Ancient Rome for guidance, as that collection of users has developed standards and guidelines for articles on this subject. If they agree that your articles are worthwhile, I would stand by that evaluation. I am not a historian, so I cannot pass proper judgment on the subject, which is why I have not tagged the articles for deletion directly. I only ask that you seek a consensus opinion before you waste a lot of effort that may be undone by others. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The connections themselves are real or (almost) certain, due to the connection between marriages and cognomen of the offspring. It would've been easier to me to quote the title of Settipani's books and leave it that way, but I thought a direct source would satisfy the need for verificability. Instituto dos Arquivos Nacionais (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please create a new account. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may ask for a review of this username block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message. Thanks.

--Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 5 August 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The name is only the name of the place where one of the IP's used is located

Decline reason:

Nevertheless, it does not meet our username policy. Please select a new username and post an unblock request using the following template: {{unblock-un}}. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2009 (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.

{{unblock-un|dgarq}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Allowing username change to [[::User:dgarq|dgarq]] (talk · contribs). Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Your change to Augustus regarding the name 'Octavianus' has been reverted. Please see the talk page for Pat Southern's discussion regarding the princeps' official name between his adoption and his becoming Augustus. Also note that the Roman "rules of the adoption cognomeni (sic)" are not as hard and fast as you would aver. Thus see Shackleton Bailey, Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature (1991) - especially part 2 Adoptive Nomenclature in the Late Roman Republic - as well as the salutary examples of the adoption names of Brutus and Germanicus.

Please also note that you are in danger of the WP:3RR, and may be blocked if you persist.Catiline63 (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{3O}}. Remember you have to list the dispute there following the guidelines at that page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think it would be useful if you read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes which explains the rules on the use of titles and honorary names such as "HIH", "Effendi" etc. Basically, we don't use them except when explicitly discussing what titles and styles someone might use.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you give sources to the dates you added to article Gallienus. I have myself read many books of him and none of them give any actual dates. The chronology of third century is very confused. --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy sites, blogs etc are unreliable references. You may search in Google books for a reliable secondary source. Please also see my comment in the discussion page for Gallienus.--Dipa1965 (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are genealogy sites unreliable? Why specifically them? Other issues' sites can be reliable but never these? The eternal prejudice against Genealogy!... It's an insult for all the people who had all the trouble of transcribing all the information, specially when it's founded or based on known historical lineages. Dgarq (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can't we be less passionate? Surely it's not the only kind of sites with problematic reliability (I' ve already mentioned blogs, no need to mention other personal pages) but do you think they use reputable sources for documenting their original research?. And how could I verify your source when you say that it is gone? Please read carefully the WP policy on reliable sources. Please also check this one on verifiability of self-published sources. No printed source, at least those we (Barosaurus and I) have available, does mention the biographical details you insert into the article. I suggested you to search in Google Books in order to find a reliable reference. Why don't you give it a try?--Dipa1965 (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you may try the following sources (frome these, I use the first three for the article on Gallienus):

• D.S.Potter, The Roman Empire at bay, AD 180-395, p.264, for the date of Gallienus death (summer 268). An excellent book anyway.
• Watson, Alaric. Aurelian and the Third Century, p.41, Routledge, Oxon, 1999 (early September). Quite good book and very readable.
• Bray, John. Gallienus : A Study in Reformist and Sexual Politics, Wakefield Press, Kent Town, 1997. Bray's book is very informative on Gallienus and family (albeit confusingly arranged) but relatively difficult to find.
• Christopher S. Mackay, Ancient Rome: a military and political history, p.274, Cambridge University Press, 2004, for the date of Gallienus death (late summer or early fall, 268)
• Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, Salonina (outdated but free)

As you see from the books above, Gallienus died between summer and fall 268. But we will never be able to find a precise date. In Bray, Watson you can also find details on Gallienus family. Have a nice day --Dipa1965 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the relationship between Descent from antiquity and Lollianus Mavortius. Could you please elaborate? --TakenakaN (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason for using Settipani as reference, but I asked for the reason of putting Descent from antiquity among the related articles. --TakenakaN (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to add it, therefore. If you have no reason, could you please remove it? --TakenakaN (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem unrelated to Lollianus Mavortius. --TakenakaN (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what "descent" means, what I am saying is that there is no reason why someone interested in Mavortius should be interested in the problem of "descent from antiquity". --TakenakaN (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to add that page to every ancient person who had parents and/or sons? --TakenakaN (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was the intent. But if it bothers you... Dgarq (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does, as it is meaningless. Please remove it. --TakenakaN (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to tell you about [[1]]. I shall wait for a little time, then, if no one complains, proceed with the removal. Bye. --TakenakaN (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you please go here to comment on the move? Moonraker2 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you have recently edited some articles about peers, may I request you to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage for the correct format and style of these articles. Thanks ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have apparently either not read or not read carefully enough what I linked above, so let me cite a sentence here: "Sir" is not used before the name of a peer who is also a knight or a baronet. - as you did on [2], [3]. Please stop with such edits. Thanks ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend that to be a jab at you, just a philosophical musing (collective "we"). Thanks for adding the link. Choess (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Boleyn (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you are quite new to WP so may not realise, but to my count you've rv the Haylie Duff addition 4 times, when it's been removed by different editors. If you want to develop consensus for such an addition, pelase use the Talk page of the article to do so. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian and have noticed that on two or three (1, 2, and (maybe) 3) occasions you have added the Third Opinion {{3O}} template to article or talk pages without listing the dispute at WP:3O. Please note that just adding the template will not obtain a Third Opinion and the template will just be removed (as I have today done at Augustus); to apply for a Third Opinion you must also list the dispute at WP:30 in accordance with the directions and standards to be found there. The template is just for notifying the other users in the dispute that you have asked for a Third Opinion at WP:3O and does not, itself, make the request. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC) corrected 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{Moved from User_talk:TransporterMan#Misuse_of_the_Third_Opinion_Template:}

It wasn't a misuse, it was a mistake. I saw the template looked different, but I didn't remember how the right one was, or even know if that one wasn't right at all. The rest, I've presented one once without posting it elsewhere and someone else responded, or the other way around. What should I do then? At least you should've corrected it, it's less destructive and gives less trouble than having to rewrite it all over again. Dgarq (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to suggest anything other than a mistake or misunderstanding, and meant "misuse" to simply mean "used incorrectly" with no implication of scienter. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of your comment, but I did correct your error by removing the template and informing you of the reason that I did so. If you mean that I should have corrected it by listing the dispute at WP:3O, part of the process of obtaining a 3O is to clarify the area of dispute by making a brief statement thereof at the 3O page and it would have been improper for me to do that for you. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You added "Flavius" to Glycerius' name, but forgot to put a reference. Could you please add the source for this name, as it is missing in the sources I am aware of? --TakenakaN (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing for Julius Nepos, Ricimer and for the "Anicius" in Petronius Maximus' name. --TakenakaN (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Glycerius: Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire does not attest any "Flavius"
2. Julius Nepos: the same
3. Petronius Maximus: if you have no sources to support your reconstruction it is original research
4. Ricimer: an authoritative source is needed, "Bernd Josef Jansen Genealogy" is not.

--TakenakaN (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is Continuité gentilice..., pleas add it (with page), but with a warning that informs of the speculative nature of the name. As regards the "Flavius", add it only if you have checked the sources. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we can remove those names until a proper references are available. --TakenakaN (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19th century books and an un-sourced pdf? Have you got any recent secondary source? --TakenakaN (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This means that Glycerius, Nepos and Ricimer are unsupported? --TakenakaN (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Google" is not a source. Please, give a (recent) reliable source for the name "Flavius" or delete it. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't provide the source, the content is to be removed, you know that, don't you? --TakenakaN (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't expect me to put references for statements that you add. Take the author, the bool title, the publisher, the publication year, the ISBN code and the page and put them in a note. Statements without source are to be deleted. --TakenakaN (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome#Reliable_sources) that those sources are not reliable, that should be removed and a request for citation added. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got the book? Put the book reference (with pages and all) instead of the website. Haven't you got the book? Then the website is not sufficient. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the informations are not correctly sourced. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the fact that a website like that is not a source. The fact that the website is based on an acceptable source is not enough: we need the source, not a "reference" to it! --TakenakaN (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That transcription is not acceptable. Stop complaining.

Another thing. What's the point of adding these "refernces" to the article? What parts of the article are based on those three books? --TakenakaN (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLRE II lists him as Anicius Olybrius, with no Flavius. Please do not revert unless you have a superior reference. Catiline63 (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The legend on the coin isn't shown. The name listed beside the coin is wrong, according to PLRE II. Nowhere is Flavius attested for Olybrius.Catiline63 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His consular diptychs clearly give his full name as "Areobindus Dagalaiphus Areobindus". In future, please do not move pages just because you have a hunch that they may be wrong. Discuss first and let someone more knowledgeable have a say. Regards, Constantine ✍ 16:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to make a shouting match out of this, but can't you read? It is written that way on his own consular diptychs. That is the criterion, not what we think should be right. Calm down man... Constantine ✍ 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for sources, assuming good faith on your part, I am waiting for 48h. Give them or these additions go. Also, bear in mind that the PLRE is the standard work on late antique prosopography, so the sources better be good. Constantine ✍ 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Beside, despite the lack of references, because I don't own the books myself and only have the copy of one, it's not the reason to delete them". Are you kidding me? Have you read Wikipedia's policies on WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:VERIFY? We cannot include, or better, we have every right to delete something if it is not correctly sourced and directly contravenes what is stated in another, most reliable source. Your memory of what you have read does not constitute a WP:RS, we need page numbers and perhaps a Google Books link too... If you don't have the books, go to a library and check them out. Having recently gone through the trouble of rewriting this article top to bottom, I really do not want unreliable info to stand. Constantine ✍ 16:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please explain how Les ancêtres de Charlemagne or Continuité des élites à Byzance durant les siècles obscurs. Les princes caucasiens et l'Empire du VIe au IXe siècle are relevant to this article. From the titles alone, they aren't... Constantine ✍ 16:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you just give a book without any page numbers, then yes, it is considered "unreliable", because there is no way we can verify it. I could equally add a random book by a reputable author, which I do not own, and use it to claim that Areobindus was the secret father of Justinian. How are other users supposed to believe me if I don't give precise details on where I found it? That is how WP works, whether you like it or not. With other users, whom I have worked with and have reason to trust, I would be inclined to let them, but it is not (yet) the case with you. The burden of proof for your claims is firmly on you, please realise that. Also, please check up the authors of the PLRE. You may call it "Medieval" or other names, but it remains the standard work on the field, written by people who are among the best on the subject of late Antique studies, so your personal disdain of it is irrelevant. Constantine ✍ 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Even that I had the page you couldn't verify it either, you need the book for that!... And if you can't find it so Your Authority can say it's right, what difference does it make? What's the page for, to look at a name of a book? "Oh, it has a page number! Now I know it's reliable!..."" No, that is of course not what I mean. If you provide a page number, that at least you indicate that you have searched the book, and that the relevant info can be found by someone who has it or who can find it without having to read it in its entirety. Read WP:VERIFY. You however claim to "remember" all these things from your last reading of these books, which is emphatically not a reliable source. "Good or bad, PLRE doesn't annull everything else made after it, of course!" Of course not, but it is a standard reference work, written by experts on the field, which is accessible and therefore verifiable by everyone at Google Books. The books by Mr. Settipani on the other hand are neither. He may be an excellent genealogist, but on the field of late Antiquity, personally I'd go with Martindala and Morris any time. Give some concrete references, and his opinion will be allowed to stand alongside what the PLRE states. Otherwise, I'll have no choice but to remove it again. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please bear in mind that WP has penalties for WP:UNCIVIL behaviour towards other editors and penalties for breaking WP:3RR in content disputes. You're not very new, and you have been warned before, but I am giving you a heads up. Let's keep things calm, all right? Constantine ✍ 17:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is "appropriate" when a) there is a definite fact which is covered in one section of the book, and not by the book in its entirety, and b) when the relevant information's accuracy is challenged by other editors. As I said, you have a burden of proof. Be advised, just placing random page numbers will not be sufficient now. As for this comment: "You destroy months of work without any respect, I'd make you pay for that if I could!", I rewrote the article from scratch, as any user has the right to, and provided it with reliable sources and references. I don't see how I "destroyed" it. Now, as for the last part, you have been warned above... Constantine ✍ 17:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's there, there it is!." And we are supposed to take your word for it, when the PLRE directly contravenes this? Sorry, won't happen. "indemnify me for the lost time or something,", please read what Wikipedia is about. No one pays us here, and everyone has the right to do whatever edit he/she sees fit in order to improve its content. That is my last word. 48h until you come up with some reliable & verifiable source, or they go. Constantine ✍ 17:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a fuss of things, but remember two basic thing: a) I am challenging this particular addition to this particular articles, not all your edits, and b) I am doing so because your information is directly contravened by an authoritative, respectable, scholarly and verifiable source. Memory, no matter how good, is not WP:RS. Period. Constantine ✍ 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"authority arguments, falacious!" For Heaven's sake, we are not having a philosophical argument on rhetoric, but a real argument on sources. And yes, Martindale and Morris are respected scholars and among the best authorities in their field. I come up on their work pretty much everywhere on late Antiquity-related books and publications, which I cannot say for Mr. Settipani. And since you can actually go to Google Books and see for yourself the reference, I will prefer them as a source per WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. I am neither threatening you nor harassing you. Read what I have written carefully. This is how WP works, it is not a personal grudge, as you seem to take it. Other users have remarked on your poor use of sources before, you must realize that this is a problem. "Memory" simply doesn't do. Constantine ✍ 17:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me repeat it differently: Settipani may be reliable, but your use of him isn't. You claim that he has written something, while there is no way to verify it. I am not attacking Mr. Settipani or you, just the way you have used his books as a source. Also, please take your "rich bitch" insults elsewhere. You don't know me or anything about me, so just keep it down, all right? PS. at last a source. If you had posted it earlier, we would have saved ourselves the fight... I am going through it now. Constantine ✍ 17:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there does not appear to be any reference to either Areobindus, Anicia Juliana, a grandson named Probus or anything, at least upon a quick examination. Page numbers please... Constantine ✍ 17:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not doubting Settipani, I (and TakenakaN apparently) am merely doubting your use of his work. We are all human, and errors can be made. There is one reliable & verifiable source and one which is reliable but of unknown content and non-verifiable (neither you nor I have the books). If things were the other way round, what would you do, which would you rely upon? And please stop with the hysterics. Constantine ✍ 17:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The credibility of an author, however, is lower than the one of an editor of wikipedia. The only one who can challenge an author is another author" Unfortunately, it is not the authors themselves who write here, but editors. And editors do have the right to challenge another editor. WP:BURDEN is clear on this: it is up to you to convince that your source does support your claim. So far, you have not done it. You have defended the author, but his credibility is not the point here. The credibility of your additions is, especially when you freely admit that you only remember their existence. I really do not know how to make this clearer. Constantine ✍ 18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And PS, these sources were added by User:G.-M. Cupertino, not by you. So again, there is no proof that you ever saw them, unless of course you are G.-M. Cupertino, in which case the whole discussion is moot since G.-M. Cupertino is banned. Constantine ✍ 18:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their "suicide notes" are the same! 8o) Catiline63 (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop messing around? If you don't know something, ask, don't move pages around just because you think they are incorrect. Furthermore, what's the point of adding Settipani's works to all those articles if you don't even have read them? --TakenakaN (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the PLRE does not call Romulus Augustulus' father, Orestes, "Flavius" - as you'd know if you owned a copy. Note also that wikipedia pages cannot be used as a reliable source for other wikipedia pages. Saying "look at this other page" just doesn't cut it. Catiline63 (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that it's a waste of time for me to contribute to Wikipedia. Huge amounts of time are wasted (for absolutely no compensation) making edits which are not always appreciated and are reverted for often trivial reasons. I have decided to refocus my efforts on specific technical writing projects which will likely pay more in the long run than Wikipedia (they could hardly pay less). Thanks...

Quote from CiudadanoGlobal (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dgarq (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't trust your memory because I don't know you. The internet is a faceless medium, and the only way one can establish credentials with other users is through prolonged interaction. Since that is not the case between us, I am obliged to follow Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, which require a page number, simply because citing an entire book where a reference may be buried in a thousand pages of other stuff is not proper academic practice. As for Mr Settipani, his work may be good, but it does not follow that the claim "I read it once in Settipani" is the ultimate bullet-proof citation, especially if the claimed fact contradicts a high-quality standard reference work like PLRE. As for your possible identification with G.-M. Cupertino, it rests on WP:DUCK. Now, I really don't particularly care whether you are him, but sockpuppeting is prohibited in WP for a reason, and rules are rules. I do care far more about additions that have no reliable references in articles where I and other users spent time and effort to provide solid referencing. Read again my replies and you will see whether I "derive pleasure" from prohibiting you from editing. I am doing neither the one nor the other, I am merely trying to implement Wikipedia's policies. There is no personal animosity or grudge, just a failure on your part to provide a correct citation, a total unwillingness to accept the self-evident fact that "memory" does not constitute a reliable source and constant whining after. Constantine ✍ 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even a lawyer relies on laws and precedent, but in a formal case, he has to quote them by name, so that these in turn can be found in the relevant books. He can't just go in a courtroom and say "I remember reading that in a similar case, the defendant was acquitted". This is essentially what you are doing here, and it is inadmissible, especially when (I repeat) it contradicts a standard reference work. Constantine ✍ 18:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you are obviously 194.38.128.26 (talk · contribs), I remind you that when you have an established account, it is always preferable to use it, otherwise it can be construed as sockpuppeteering. Further, please limit your insults against other users whose only fault is to disagree with you. Constantine ✍ 18:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to discuss major changes to the article on Peter Fontaine. Please do so on the corresponding discussion page.--Technopat (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for reverting your edit at Josie Davis. I checked her website, which makes no mention of the Rebecca bit, and missed the bit at the bottom of the other link, which does. Not sure, though, that that is conclusive proof her real name includes the Rebecca. On the other note, I can assure you that even if I had the slightest interest in doing so, my time is too valuable to stalk anyone. But I'm sure our paths will cross again at some article or another at Wikipedia. A simple matter of statistics and possibly having many coinciding articles watchlisted.--Technopat (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]