User talk:Leporello78
Disambiguation link notification for November 7
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jean Baptiste Bory de Saint-Vincent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Badajoz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 26
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morea expedition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibrahim Pasha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 4
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stamatis Voulgaris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Assume good faith
[edit]Accusing me of stigmatizing people for their ethnic background purely on the basis of an edit comment strikes me as a serious failure to assume good faith. I wasn't stigmatizing anyone. I speak and write German fluently and thus recognize the characteristic grammatical patterns. I was a) implying that the article may have at least in part been machine translated from a German original and b) explaining my reasons for making what might seem like picky grammar fixes (e.g., present perfect to imperfect) to make the text sound more idiomatic. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Louis Despréaux Saint-Sauveur
[edit]I believe the author of the source cited (Το έργο της γαλλικής επιστημονικής αποστολής του Μοριά 1829-1838. Γιάννης Σαΐτας - L'œuvre de l'expédition scientifique de Morée 1829-1838 is one of several French translations of the title.) has confused the botanist Jean Marie Despréaux (1794-1843) with the French consul at Thessaloniki, Louis Félix Jacques François Despreaux de Saint Sauveur (1792-1876). Nomen ambiguum (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nomen ambiguum ([[User talk:Nomen ambiguum|talk]) No, I don't think so. I just verified in the book (in both French and Greek editions) and his first name (the botanist) is mentioned as Louis (1794-1843). I don't understand your problem: the botanist, as mentioned in Wikipedia page, is Jean-Marie or Louis (French first names were always very confusing in the past, I continuously have similar problems myself to explain it to others regarding my ancestrors...), whereas the vice-consul of Thessaloniki is Louis-Félix (not Louis). Louis-Félix is often shortened as Louis, which may trigger confusion. However, their profession is quite different and, most importantly, their dates of birth/death are different. When Yiannis Saïtas mentions the correct job (botanist) and correct dates (1794-1843), the "Louis" becomes clear (Louis or Jean-Marie, not Louis-Félix...) Leporello78 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nomen ambiguum (talk) Last: "Despréaux" alone is not different from "Despréaux Saint-Sauveur" or "Despréaux de Saint-Sauveur"... In France, these titles of nobility are often shortened for simplicity or to "attenuate" the noble origin during "Republican times". Despréaux=Despréaux Saint-Sauveur. Anyways, your comments are useful, but I do not quite understand your curious obsession in questioning the scientific rigor of the opus cited (which is so far the most complete work ever produced internationally regarding the Scientific expedition of Morea) and the original documents (all available in open-access that I provided), which are all very clear on it. Especially, this debate has no point, as you're not providing any new documents or sources/references to backup your claim... Scientific data are always "true", provided that no new data, clearly disproving the former, are not presented". Basic rule of Science. Leporello78 (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nomen ambiguum (talk) Your "I believe" is simply not acceptable. Can you imagine the time I'm spending these last days to try to "convice" you that original books and new academic research internationally acclaimed do not present... mistakes, as you're "believing" without documents? Observing your name, I presume that names and their accuracy are one of your specialty. So, take this kind advice, please: regarding French names, do more research to understand how they're used before engaging sterile discussions with specialists. Wikipedia rule demands thorough research and referencing before editing. Best. Leporello78 (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nomen ambiguum (talk) Question: why did you change the birth date from 25 to 20? Is there any particular «reference» to justify it? Did you have access to the birth certificate? Are you, then, certain about the correct conversion between "Revolutionary/Republican Calendar" (in use between 1792 and 1806) and the Gregorian Calendar? Because I noticed that in the reference you added (Necrologia at the time of his death in 1843), his birth date is 25(!), as in the vast majority of other mentions... Thanks for verifying it and correcting it back in case of any doubt. Leporello78 (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I have downloaded two .jpeg files from the website of the archives of Ille-et-Villaine. The record begins at the end of one image and continues onto the next. The record is of the birth of Jean Marie, son of Louis Jean Julien Leonard Despréaux, born 30 Frimaire third year of the republic and recorded the same day. This is the only Despréaux birth recorded that year in Fougeres. There is a Louis Florin Michel Despréaux born 20 May 1798, and no others of this surname in the 10-year index for the commune (1793-1802.) according to 'Fougères, diocèse de Rennes, baronnie et sénéchaussée, Volumes 1-5, by Paul Paris-Jallobert, Louis Jean Julien Leonard Despreaux was the son of H. N. Nicolas-Louis-Michel Despréaux, sieur de Rouaudais. Is there some way I can get these images to you? I'm sure you would understand them better than I could. Louis Félix Jacques François Despréaux de Saint-Sauveur, Officier of the Legion of Honor (Paris, 28 April 1792 - Paris, 11 November 1876) was was French Consul at various posts, including Corfu, Thessaloniki, Odessa, Lanarca, Dardanelles, between 1821 and 1848. And yes, I have seen many errors in the works of specialists.
@Nomen ambiguum OK, seems very convincing, sorry for having asked you these details. And indeed, 30 Frimaire Year III corresponds to 20 December 1794. Maybe, could you add, please, the hyperlink of the specific page of the archives of Ille-et-Vilaine to your reference? Thanks in advance. Again, I guess that "de Saint-Sauveur" which marks the noble ascendancy of the family was suppressed during the revolutionary period. Also, if his father was also called Louis, that's the reason he may have used it in parallel to Jean-Marie. Anyways, not only the "specialist" Yiannis Saïtas may have make a mistake, but also the very official "Bibliothèque Nationale de France" (BNF, French National Library), which is referencing his archives and documents in its catalogue, as «Louis Despréaux Saint-Sauveur (1794-1843), botanise français»... (In fact, BNF keeps the record of his manuscripts that are conserved at the no less official Library of the "Institut de France" (the French Academy, under same name, by the way...)) So many & frequent errors? I guess (to stop here the conversation) that given official name and used name always trigger this kind of confusion. Yet, as we didn't live at that time, and didn't know the person personally, we can only rely on past documents, which, in this case present both names. French Wikipedia did the right thing in presenting "both" first names. Removing one would be a terrible rewriting history by omission. Our role is not to decide or judge from the far future what name is the "correct" one. If, for instance, we remove Louis (as you obviously favour), then the National archives will be lost for Wikipedia users... I can only recommend you (as I did in the "member if the Morea expedition" after your suggestion), to add a disambiguation link to precise the difference with Louis-Félix, vice-consul. More information is always better than less... Regards. The location of the birth record is the thirteenth and fourteenth images at the location https://archives-en-ligne.ille-et-vilaine.fr/thot_internet/FrmLotDocFrame.asp?idlot=49738/49739&idfic=0281703&ref=0281741&appliCindoc=THOPWREG&resX=1680&resY=1050&init=1&visionneuseHTML5=0 Or you can get to the same document by going to https://archives-en-ligne.ille-et-vilaine.fr/thot_internet/FrmSommaireFrame.asp and entering the desired commune, year and type of record. Either way, ou will need to enable Flash on the the site to view. Thank you for your time and patience. Nomen ambiguum (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nomen ambiguum ([[User talk:Nomen ambiguum|talk]) Would you please restore the previous name of the page??? This joke has limits now. How dare you change the name of REFERENCES???? You probably know, from your computer, better than Librairies of Institut de France AND Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle??? In addition, how will people, students, researchers find/track the original documents when changing the record of references??? Are you a researcher, by the way? Most probably NOT, as your basic mistakes and not even done by undergrads... (Have you also ever heard about artist's names? Should we also change «Maria Callas» name in Wikipedia because her birth & wedding records are under «Maria Kalogeropoulou»??? Do that, as you're doing for the botanist, and nobody will ever be able anymore to track the name of her publications/recordings under the "fake" Callas. Last: I already exlained you that during French revolution, "particle" names were removed to erase any trace of noble origin. Obviously, you know very few. And when we don't know, we stick to official records.) With your obsessions, personal feelings and gross mistakes mentioned above, you are a disgrace to Scientific Research. NEVER CHANGE REFERENCES!
@Nomen ambiguum I really can not understand your obsession with ignoring the official referenced name in Libraries of «French Academia» (Institut de France) and of «Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle» (last ref is only an article in spanish newspaper...). I can't even less understand your obsession, as these refs are as they are, not to mention at least for information BOTH names, as they concern the same person. This "game" of edit reversions being endless, don't you think that a mature approach would consist in mentioning both names??? Resolving conflicts in Wikipedia does not mean "winning": rather finding compromises. I would agree with you if you could change -based in scientific proofs- references ON the official sites of Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Institut de France & Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle. If not, different names will remain between these (most) official, Historic & National Institutions and your personal "opinion". Don't you agree that Scientific Research need more official references than personal opinions of anonymous individuals, performing their own "research" published in Wikipedia from their own computer. Enough with pseudo-science from Youtube, Instagram & Facebook... Do not oblige me requesting third-party arbitration. Your personal "opinion" would not resist the aforementioned venerable Instititions... For all I know, the bibliographic sources may have all taken their information on "Despreaux Saint-Sauveur" from Idref, which cites Wikipedia as its source. Without direct knowledge of, and access to, the original source of the claim I can neither disprove, nor be conviced of said claim. I withdraw from the controversy pending actual evidence in either direction. Nomen ambiguum (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |