Heinsteindesign
Български | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Lietuvių | 한국어 | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Suomi | Svenska | Türkçe | 简体中文 | The main embassy page edit
 Getting Started Getting help
 The Commmunity |
 Policies and Guidelines
 Things to do | |
Please provide references for your edits edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Shell babelfish 21:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey there - I'm not going to take out your edit a second time, especially since it was much more condensed and encylopedic this time but please, as soon as you can, you need to provide a reference that (like a newspaper or magazine article for example) that can verify the information you added. Thanks for your help! Shell babelfish 21:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hey again. I really need you to respond to these messages - you keep repeating the same edit and not fixing the problem which is going to end up with you being blocked from editing. I'd rather not see that happen, so would it be possible to talk here and see if I can help you understand what is needed? Shell babelfish 21:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
August 2009 edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rita Jenrette. 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. If that proves 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Rita Jenrette. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
September 2009. Why not accepting clearly proven historical facts? edit
Why for heavens sake does our good old notorious author Hullaballoo Wolfowitz delete at least twice a day all well and 100% referenced historical facts about the noble italian family of Jenrettes husband Prince Nicolo Boncompagni Ludovisi (see chapter "Second marriage") and about her own clearly stated descent from a noble english family (see chapter "Family history"), or her degree obtained at Harvard Business School and finally the awards she won as a stage actress etc? Why has all this daily been replaced by historically wrong, slanderous and libelous details or completely deleted as pretended "poorly referenced", when instead clearly and 100% proven by a multitude of best and first class references?! If people are not familiar with these evident facts on europeen nobility that can be looked up easily in each library (also in the US, of course) or in the internet (google books etc.), why do they have to be deleted and replaced by libelous and completely wrong pretensions like "the couple styles themselves as Prince and Princess..." or her husbands "claims to be..."? Sorry to insist from a professional point of view as a historian, but they a r e Prince and Princess Boncompagni Ludovisi even though these titles are of no particular political meaning nowadays! Why is it ignored, by deleting the whole chapter over and over again, that noble titles were restituted to all italian nobility after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 (Art. 100), after having taken away from Napoleon only temporarily in 1806? What about reading the books proposed in the annotations instead of replacing right things by completely wrong ones? What about those ten thousands of hits under the name of Boncompagni Ludovisi at google?! Why has the following link been deleted at least 25 times by o n l y Wikipedia author Hullaballoo Wolfowitz even if it proves easily and undoubtedly the royal descent of that family and so of Jenrettes husband: http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/gotha/piombgen.htm
This is all slightly disappointing and obviously rather weird...
Or: Why insisting constantly that Prince Boncompagni Ludovisi should be called a "perfume entrepreneur" as it is completely evident, that he just comissioned a fragrance only once in his lifetime on the occasion of his wedding with Rita Jenrette in 2009? Only try to find a second fragrance he presumingly has created! Nothing, sorry.... This all is absolutely ignorant and absurd.
I want to have your clear opinion on this subject, hopefully from serious authors not fighting an obvious private battle against a living person. This has to be stopped right now! Good Hullaballoo Wolfowitz states on his page being in the past that much in conflict with other authors that he therefore once retired from Wikipedia for a long, long, long time to keep, as he writes, his grandchildren instead. Probably he is a good guy but his contributions an that site are absolutely destructive as anyone and everbody can see on the history of this site...
(please all of you, excuse my unperfect english, I'm unfortunately no native speaker...hope you got the clear purpose of my message even so...thanks a lot!) Heinsteindesign (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Rita Jenrette. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.