User talk:Save venice

Palazzi Barbaro-Dario

Hi. You seem to be using a website, something else, and a book. I'd suggest you have a look at WP:CITE. I'll be away now for about 8 hours, on the ludicrous basis that I need to sleep occasionally. Come back to me if you have any problems. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 03:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite prepeared to help you on this page - but don't push your luck with me - all facts will be referenced, and properly referenced without exception. OK? Giano 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitus Barbaro

Can I ask if you are the person that created the articles relating to this person? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you don't know what I am going on about with this but we had some people making some hoax articles about Vitus Barbaro, and claiming he had the right to the title Grand Prince of Transylvania, Prince Wei Long, Princely Count to the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, Baron dell'Albergo or the equivalent Nobile of Lombardy-Veneto and Patrician of Venice. Can you tell us if Vitus is entitled to use these and if he is really the representative of the Albergo line? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vitus Barbaro is listed as a real person of the Albergo line, and he would have the right to use the Princely Count title, Baronial and Nobile title. I am not familiar with Prince Wei Long, and I could not answer anything about that one. I also don't have any biographical information about him except for what I listed before- sorry I can't be of anymore help.Save venice 23:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK you can see the version of the Barbaro page that was deleted here. If you think some of that is correct then please provide legitimate sources. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it looks very biographical, which I could not answer on. Also, if some of that personal material was/is accurate it should have been placed onto it's own page under "Vitus Barbaro" rather than added with so much detail to a general Barbaro family page. I know for a fact that Antonio and Vitus are the acting heads of both branches, but I don't feel comfortable to add them as red links to a "notable members' section. They both are the titled heads, but they still might not be that significant, except for being the current head. What we could do is add another categorie to the Barbaro family page under "acting heads" and I can put what information I know about them in that section as cited red links to be developed. As for the other information, do you want me to go through it, and if I can cite it as accurate add it to the Barbaro family page?Save venice 23:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me references to any publications in which Vitus Barbaro senior and junior are mentioned? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Are they listed in Vittorio Spretti's Enciclopedia Storico Nobiliari Italiana? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Giovanni Battista Barbaro is mentioned in this book regarding his marriage to Vittoria, daughter of Antonio Cesana around 1628. Is this the same GB Barbaro who is the ancestor of Sebastiano? Do you know how he is related to the Francesco Barbaro? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Barbaro Family

I suggest that you read WP:OWN; the article is not yours. Sources that cannot be consulted by other Wikipedia editors are not allowed by WP:V. And, by the way, the list of programs at the Yale Web site makes no mention of a doctoral program in "Venetian Studies." Deor 02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User pages versus user talk pages

You left a comment for User:Deor on that user's user page. Comments for editors are better left on their talk page. User talk:Deor for instance. I moved your comment. Into The Fray ^T/C 02:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete other users' talk-page comments

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Barbaro family, you will be blocked for vandalism. Deor 04:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reverted your blanking of talk pages at both Barbaro family and Palazzo Dario. Please so not revert other people's comments again. Giano 06:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persist in this edit waring and you will almost certainly be blocked for 3R Giano 08:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism

Editing archives, especially in somebody else's userspace, is also vandalism.[1] It's altogether a wonder you haven't been blocked yet. If you make one more disruptive edit of any kind, you will be. And please note that vandalism-only accounts are blocked indefinitely. I don't see a single constructive edit from you. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barbaro family. 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. Into The Fray ^T/C 13:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked for repeated blanking/deletion of others' talk-page comments after multiple warnings. As an aside, this user looks to be a reincarnation of User:Tiki-two, who attempted to insert a number of hoaxes related to a supposed "prince of America" named "Vitus Barbaro" into several articles in June. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever write anything about a "Prince of America". This is all some nonsense that Wikipedia wants to perpetuate. I wrote about factual sourced information that can be checked. Please do not respond to this page any longer, I will not be involved with wikipedia any more- it is a waste of my time when all of my sourced work is reverted, and please stop perpetuating lies about Vitus- you are part of the problem, as well as everyone else that used him falsely in some Draculian sense. He is a real person that someone made up a bunch of lies about and he is an important part of that family's branch as is Antonio for the other branch. Grow up! You think that just because someone does show up in some basic google search easily that that makes them non-existant, give me a break, check the sources I listed, he is very real. Yes, the recent book out about Wikipedia fostering a culture of misinformation based on non-professional historians and editors is 100% true, and while you are at it why don't you dismnantle the other articles I wrote too- they must surely be hoaxes as well!Save venice 15:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]