Jump to content

User talk:Fabritius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Massimo, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Hello, I noticed that you have claimed to be the head of Massimo family (per this edit), please take note that conflict-of-interest is a very serious issue on Wikipedia and editors (such as yourself) are usually advised to keep a neutral viewpoint, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, when editing articles which they might have affiliations with. However, having said that, I want you to discuss this matter first over at the discussion page of Massimo as well as point out the problems that has occurred during the process of edit by other editor, before making the matter known to any Administrator. This is an essential part of the dispute resolution process. Please take heed, thank you~! Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 12:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dave 1185. There's not a conflict of iterest with me. I didn't wrote the article. I just purged it from mistakes, fake titles and added some extra text. Historybuff1930 is most likely the one who can have a conflict of interest as he's biased. He probably is Valerio Massimo, a member of a cadet branch residing in England. This could be an explanation of his obsession with secondborns and cadet branche's titles.

The strongest proof that he's biased and non scientific, although claiming to be an historian [1], apart from simply deleting the references and sources which go against his theories ('The family all bear the Princely title') and apparently refusing to investigate is the following:

in the Colonna article (another roman princely family) he cites exactly the one and only authoritative source for italian titles ('Libro d'Oro della Nobiltà Italiana. Rome: Archivio di Stato and Collegio Araldico')[2] which I'm referencing here in the article Massimo [3] and he's canceling and denying [4], saying in his edit summary '...Also, the 'Libro D'Oro' is known to be an unreliable source, including many fake titled families'. This source is the issue. According to Historybluff it is genuine in the Colonna article but at the same time unreliable in the Massimo one.

Also Historybuff's reference number 8 [5] in the now protected but incorrect article, demonstrates exactly that Historybuff is wrong and biased: the titles are not borne by all the members of the family, in particular Valerio Massimo bears no titles.

That's why I think Historybuff has probably a conflict of interest. I suspect he actually is Valerio Massimo because of his stubborn vanity edits all in the same direction: in this way Valerio Massimo turns to be Prince Valerio Massimo.

I don't think there's much to discuss. The only authoritative source for italian titles is obviously the italian college of arms, Consulta araldica and its official directories (Libro d'Oro), as for any other country, as also demonstrated by Historybuff1930 in his edit of the article about the Colonna family.

The article as it is now it's incorrect. It doesn't meet wikipedia's guidelines. Historybuff1930 also tampered with other princely families' articles (Colonna, Orsini, Borghese). I was asked to mend the Borghese article. In the Colonna article I saw that Historybuff arbutrarily removed a paragraph that was historically correct - this should be reverted. The Orsini article should be investigated. In the Borghese article Historybuff didn't revert the changes once mended by me. He did edit warring only in the Massimo article and is apparently only obsessed with Valerio Massimo's titles.

Now what? How can the Massimo article be reverted? Fabritius (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave. Historybuff1930 referenced the same source for italian titles (Libro d'Oro) even in the Orsini family article [6]. He's defintively biased. Please block that 'historian'[7] asap! Fabritius (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salve~!

[edit]

Hello again, I see that you have calmed down at last and is now making good progress towards working together with others on the article page content dispute of Massimo. BTW, "Ignore all rules" is not something funny. Here's why, please read → Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means ← for more details. Note also that I subscribe to WP:DGAF when dealing with angry people, such as yourself many hours back. Honestly, I know my temper so I would rather talk to you when either you are calm or I am calm, the best is both are calm. We can get along better that way, agreed? Would you also agree to disagree and disagree to agree? Let me know if you find yourself lost on that last part, yeah? ;)

Personally, I'm going to give you this section below to read because I believe it will really help you in the long run if you understand the basics. Cheers and ciao~! (P.S.:Don't disturb me for the next 10hours, I need to sleep~! >_<#) --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 20:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo

[edit]

Please continue use the talk pages before making controversial and/or major changes to articles. You have yet to achieve any sort of consensus on this page for the edits you are proposing. Also please read WP:Reliable sources; Angelfire pages and other personal webhosting sites rarely (if ever) qualify as reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respomse to Jamie

[edit]

Hy Jaime. It's not a major change. If you look at Historybuff's edits you'll see the changes are really a few. I just corrected the article. I know angelfire is not a reliable source. I'm not referencing it. It's Historybuff1930 who references this kind of sources and who is basing his conjectures on such sources. This is not scientific at all. - Fabritius (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2010 (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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


@Jamie

Why did you revert the article thus inserting again the source for which you wrote (see above) ...Angelfire pages and other personal webhosting sites rarely (if ever) qualify as reliable sources. ? With your revert you reinserted reference n. 9 and source "Paul Theroff's Online Gotha", i.e. Angelfire (http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/gotha/massimo.html). You should delete it. Reverting the article you deleted also all the wikipedia'a articles I referenced as a proof to my statements (like this one [8]). I added correct text which you can verify it in the other italian wikipedia's articles I referenced (now deleted).

Historybuff's edits of Massimo and other roman princely families (Borghese, Colonna, Orsini) are all of the same kind: he only adds the words "The family is represented by ........., whose heir is ........" without the permission of the living persons involved, doing this even with their minor sons, and gives titles according to his inadequate sources. like he did with me "The Princely family is represented by Prince Fabrizio Massimo-Brancaccio, Prince of Arsoli and Prince of Triggiano (b. 1963), whose heir Prince Fabrizio has requested not be cited". This crap is on the Massimo article you just reverted and this story began about 5 months ago.

But Historybuff1930 does even worse. Sometimes he also deletes historically correct informations like here [9] for the Colonna family. That's his scientific contribution to the net. This clearly demonstartes he is not a serious nor a reliable editor and that he uses inadequate sources, the same sources he references and uses as a proof to his conjectures in the Massimo article.

Edward321 and Historybuff1930 are trying to evade the issue.

Edward is referencing the italian constitution which doesn't say that titles have been abolished (please have a look at it-I already commented on the talk page). The constitution also gives a proof that titles are still valid (see Massimo discussion page). Please look at my -Response to Edward321- on may 5th.


Historybuff is writing that the Gotha he references is a correct source for italian titles. The documents I reference (see link on the Massimo discussion page) clearly demonstartes Gotha is not reliable for italian titles as it is not the official italian directory. In fact there was an official italian directory apporved by royal decree bu the King of Italy. The documens I provided and wikipedia's article referenced above are proving it. Historybuff never commented on these sources. Please take a look at my post of may 14th -Response to Historybuff. In particular Historybuf first urged me to show the sources like on 23rd April 2010 "Please provide access to your sources - not to front pages of websites but to the original source material itself. Until you do, I do not feel I need to answer your points again, which until you can prove them, are just opinion." and suddenly, when the sources were on their way to the web, he declared (3rd May 2010) "While I welcome being able to see 'what they say', let us be clear that the key disagreement here is not whether Fabritius can show his source material, but that his sources are not the correct ones...". Well, let me say this looks biased and fickle to me. Historybuff1930 and Edward321 are vandalizing the article inserting (wrong) genealogical informations. They're not discussig. They're just evading the issue.

Btw the issue is not whether titles are in use in Italy or not as Edward falsely states. The issue is if Massimo titles are for firstborn only and yes they are as I proved. Edward and Historybuff never looked at the documents. How can a consensus be reached this way? - Fabritius (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 31 hours for edit warring

[edit]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

response to Jamie

[edit]

You blocked me without even reading my posts and without even answering to the above questions. If you intervene in a discussion you're supposed to read, not to just threaten to block, it doesn't appears very smart. Also remember before editing: quality, not quantity as you wrote above. It's ridiculous. - Fabritius (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

administrator's abuse. The admin intervened without discussing and reading my posts, he unfairly and falsely accused me, f.i. of not addressing points made on the article's talk pages, but when I argued he never answered my questions. He went against wp's admin conduct. He reverted the article being asked by the other 2 editors (meatpuppetry?) thus reinserting sources (angelfire - theroff's gotha) which he declared weren't meeting wp's criterias as he wrote on my talk page.

Decline reason:

Assuming that the administrator did not read, and then ordering others around will never result in any form of unblock. Volunteer admins go by the information they have on hand, including reading common locations - calling "admin abuse" when it obviously was not should have led to a longer block, and removal of your talkpage access. Next time, it will. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:13, 23 May 2010 (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.

I'd also like that Ohnoitsjamie answers my questions after reading my posts.Fabritius (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately for you, your block has expired. Take the advice in the unblock denial seriously please. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from posts on my talk page on from the Talk:Massimo page that Edward and Historybuff (two trusted editors and longstanding editors) have attempted to discuss the matter with you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second block for edit warring

[edit]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 days as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fabritius&oldid=1143538356"