Varaz vache

Marital proof of Kakheti heir's ancestry

Thank you for posting information that may help prove the validity of the marriage of Prince Papuna Bagration-Gruzinsky, and therefore may establish the legitimate headship of the royal Gruzinsky line as belonging to Prince Nugzar. However, the document you cite (a 1915 marriage certificate) must be able to be seen by other editors on Wikipedia in a reputable source (such as a photocopy in a published, reputable book) or it must be seen and reported (in a published, reputable newspaper article or excerpt) by an author who publishes that information, either in hard copy (book, magazine) or online (such as at the Royal Ark). The easiest way for you to get this information into Wikipedia articles is for you to send proof of the marriage certificate to the author of the Royal Ark website, Christopher Buyers, at the Royal Ark Contact e-address, and request that he update the information on this website page. He will probably want to know how he can see the document for himself. Unfortunately, since your User:92.54.240.68 account is a sockpuppet of Konstantine 001, and you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia under that user name, you cannot avoid that block by editing under another account name (i.e. sock puppetry, therefore I will delete your comment on David Bagration of Mukhrani. Once you have learned more about editing Wikipedia according to its rules (i.e. NPOV, Reputable sources and WP:CITE I encourage you to ask for the ban to be lifted. Meanwhile, thank you for this information, and I am sure that Christopher Buyers (who is the researcher who has repeatedly and publicly doubted the legitimacy of Prince Nugzar and Princess Anna's ancestry) will promptly correct his website so that we can include this information in relevant Wikipedia articles. FactStraight (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Bagration of Mukhrani. 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. FactStraight (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)