User:Paramandyr/Nonsense

Talk:Urse d'Abetot:

Ealdgyth:

[1] --Competency questioned
[2] --Age matters explained.

- Pipera:
[3] --sources should be used and not behind a paywall/subscription, excuse for using outdated sources

Ealdgyth:

[4] -- sources are not required to be free. Explains open domesday(primary source), we should rely on secondary sources.

- Pipera:
[5] --cites WP:Using sources(an essay). Trys to use it saying sources should not be behind a paywall/subscription
[6] -- they as an academic find this educationally incorrect.(later they change their comment to "sound to use their work")
[7] -- cites source from 1874
[8] -- categorically determines that WP:AGEMATTERS is "incorrect".

Ealdgyth:

[9] -- in response to 1874 source WP:AGEMATTERS

- Pipera:
[10] --ignores what Ealdgyth says about Age of sources, again, and states, "there is no such thing as outdated"
[11] -- justifies usage of 1874 source since its on google books
[12] -- states that in genealogy they "use records to support our research"[sic]

Raoul I of Tosny

- Pipera:
[13] -- added a reference linked to French Wikipedia article
[14] -- adds another reference linked to French Wikipedia article

Paramandyr:

[15] -- removes reference to French Wikipedia article citing WP:CIRC.

- Pipera:
[16] -- adds back what Paramandyr removed French Wikipedia article used as reference
[17] --places "French Wikipedia" next to reference

Paramandyr:

[18] -- removed reference which uses French Wikipedia article as a reference
[19] -- Paramandyr posts warning concerning the usage of any Wikipedia articles as a reference

- Pipera:
[20] -- typical Pipera response that other editors should wait around(for something) and that my warning wasn't valid, despite they added French Wikipedia next to the reference!

Adam Port

Ealdgyth:

[21] --Ealdgyth explains that the references posted by Pipera don't call Adam("nephew of either Hugh or Hubert"), explains that Pipera has been warned of this(WP:OR) before

- Pipera:
[22] --completely ignores what Ealdgyth says in their post and talks about how Ealdgyth has reverted sourced information and the sources are reliable

[23] --completely removed first paragraph of previous post no explanation given(no edit summary)

[24] -- still ignoring what Ealdgyth says, Pipera cites ANOTHER source stating, "others have a right to come into the article under open source and add what they have to say to the article."

[25] -- cite another domesday source

Ealdgyth:

[26] --first part Ealdgyth explains in detail how these source fail to support Pipera's edit, second part Ealdgyth explains how certain information(added by Pipera?) is off topic and occurs well after Adam Port is dead, also ask about a Maria Miller(are they a reliable source?)

- Pipera:
[27] -- Pipera's response, "I have a Masters of Education I know how to write."

[28] -- Pipera states, "..I am related to the people you have removed, and they it within my family tree and I know what I am talking about."

[29] -- Pipera states they have been studying this line for well over 15 yrs

Ealdgyth:

[30] -- explains that being related to someone doesn't make them an expert on the subject, explains this is not a genealogical website and suggests Pipera should edit WikiTree.

- Pipera:
[31] -- states they would "never reference as an academic any source that is not reliable", that being related "Further, being a direct descendant of someone does make an academic argument more substantial, and more credible for this site." and "I do not need WikiTree to back anything I have stated here."(which isn't what Ealdgyth said), then states that Wikipedia is indeed a genealogical website.
[32] -- then states information is incorrect since they "fair bit of knowledge" of these families
[33] -- Goes off on a tangent talking about some Dr. Round

Ealdgyth:

[34] --"I have no idea what the above is supposed to be arguing. Nothing is sourced to Round. Nor was any chart by Round removed from this article that I can see."
[35] -- explains that the source #13 does not say "that Hubert was the father of Adam, merely that Adam was a descendant of Hubert."(WP:OR) Also, notes that the reference used is poorly formatted and should be written as a journal

- Pipera:
[36] -- ignores what Ealdgyth states concerning information not supported by the references and starts asking why a source has been removed(opendomesday)

Ealdgyth:

[37] -- explains again that information added isn't supported by the source, reiterates that this article is about Adam not Hugh or Hubert. Goes on to explain, in detail, how to cite a reference properly. Then unequivocally states, "Old family histories from the 19th century are not reliable sources. Random websites are not reliable sources. Information needs to be supported by reliable sources."

BusterD:

[38] -- asks Pipera to start signing their name at the end of their posts. Then states, " should rely less on their own WP:Original synthesis and self-reported expertise, and more on basic text formatting and heeding social norms. "...I know what I'm talking about" is never a reliable source for information on English Wikipedia. Pipera, your edits on the page (and even on this talk page) border on refusal to get the point.

- Pipera:
[39] -- completely ignores what BusterD said to them. And still signs their name at the beginning of their post.

[40] -- another off topic ?rant? about something that has nothing to do with Adam Port

Pipera's talk page

BusterD:

[41] -- Warns Pipera for edit warring.

- Pipera:
[42] -- states how they came into the article to add academic information, stating, " this was reversed stating no logical reason for the reversal of the sources." 19:11, 11 december

[43] -- then posts a reference for ?something?

BusterD:

[44] -- made a new section for the Edit warring warning
[45] -- thanks Pipera for signing their posts properly, citing that numerous editors have mentioned it, also, "The above is non-responsive to my warning, which is about behavior, not content. As I've cautioned above, you continue to be reverted on the linked article. Yet you expect me to decide a case here on the merits. You have not denied being involved in a 3RR situation. You have, once again, appealed to expertise but failed to present such on pagespace."

- Pipera:
[46] -- completely ignores BusterD's comment concerning their behavior and states, "I am not interested in that article anymore and have better thing to do with my time. What is a 3RR. I was here in back in around 2001 adding entries to Wikipedia. I have taught history in high school and I know how to teach history." 8:08, 12 december

BusterD:

[47] -- explains to Pipera, again, "Once again you appeal to your expertise, while pretending not to even know what WP:3RR is (even though you've clearly been warned for 3RR violations before). At this point, your additions to Wikipedia are each net negatives and are being reverted by other wikipedians. Your talk page is littered with interaction warnings. But you seem to continue in this manner. I'm confused."

- Pipera:
[48]-- still ignores what BusterD has said and responds, "The other issues have oathing to do with the Adam de Port article. They have no merit in the Adam de Port article. They have been resolved to a point."

[49] -- some mention of other drafts??

BusterD:

[50] -- states the previous comments by Pipera are non-responsive to what they said.

- Pipera:
[51] -- "The articles are nothing to do with what you were saying about Adam de Port and have no basis for anything pertaining to the issue. In regard to Adam de Port his lineage is extinct and there are no living ancestors of this lineage. Their lands were stripped and went to other people the Adam at the end of the tree simply vanishes into history, so any further discussion of his lineage is a moot point to all concerned. I removed myself from the article and that is the end of the story.", clearly ignoring everything said by BusterD.

18th December: