User talk:Certh/Archive3

Roman titles

I'm not trying to bully you around on your edits, but you are adding content to articles which is misleading, and factually inaccurate. Adding Roman titles to post-Roman members of the nobility, for example, is flat out incorrect. You were on the right trail over the summer by creating a new category specifically for such titles qualified with the medieval time period. Numerous editors have tried to explain this to you (including on other articles, such as the President of Russia). I would advise that you investigate Wikipedia's guidelines concerning original research in articles. Thanks. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not add any titles that are not supported with sources. I fail tpo see why adding a title to an article of a person who held it can be "inaccurate".--Certh (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell, what you are doing is considered tendentious editing. Using the Roman Consul title as an example, this is a title which has a well defined historical definition relating back to the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. The fact that local nobility ruling areas once inside the Roman state used these titles long after the demise of Roman power is an interesting story, and one which has room to be explored in this encyclopedia. However, it cannot be said that these local nobility were Roman Consuls in the historical sense of the title. The same thing goes for other titles of the Roman state. Someone who knows little of history would be badly misled if they pulled up an article on one of these nobles and saw that they were a consul of Rome, or any other such term. God help these individuals if they are so unfortunate as to believe it, and use it in an article. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman consul has different meanings, you know. That those were Roman consuls is a well documented fact. Please refrain from removing sourced facts from Wikipedia.--Certh (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

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 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. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been forum shopping—leaving messages in multiple places such as Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-16 Simeon of Moscow and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_am_pursued_by_an_administrator . Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Toddst1 (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)