User talk:De Berardinis M

Welcome!
Hi De Berardinis M! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to De Berardinis, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''The article in question is effectively a disambiguation page for articles on people with that name. Please do not try to turn it into a family history. If you wish to create an article on a particular family, do so separately. Also, please don't refer to other editors' good faith edits as vandalism, just because you don't agree with them. Thank you. --'' DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you have me mistaken with Wire723, he/she/ it seems they are the owner of that page and can come delete all the work people have put into that page of which i can count at least 6 or 7 different contributors. I think we need to address that first and foremost. Tell me you do not see any credible links on that page ? yes or no ? if yes then why were they unceremoniously deleted ? If no then what is credible to you ? Municipal Records ? no good ? University Records ? no good ? Publications ? no good ? then id say if that is your stance then 70% of wiki is hearsay. May i make one thing clear, if you delete me or ban me its no real bother to me, just another day of frontier justice in the millenial age of popular-ism.

And is it no wonder someone would be upset when all their work is deleted.. where is the support ? Should you not be talking to Wire723 about their indignant manner of deleting things, that i think would warrant some sort of prior discussion ? Im not saying this is what it is but it looks like an armchair car mechanic with a sheriffs badge out of a cornflakes packet trying to push their squinted view on the world. And that effects the general view of Wiki ... not me.

And in reference to your comments below, im sure Wire723 got their nose out of joint when their " contributions " were deleted. Seems to me a clear case of selective prosecution. I have to say i have had a look at the discussions going on about editing etc and its clear to me that the support network culture in Wiki is un done by a select few who want to exclaim their importance as opposed to supplying knowledge that would otherwise be impossible to find. There are countless pages on Wiki that show the personal points of view of people who are relevant to their particular page. There is no way of confirming at least 30% of what i have read on some pages but like an adult i take it all with a grain of salt.

Mine and other comments on this particular page have been supplied as a back drop to the name De Berardinis. Its history and the stories of people from those families of which i admit some seem a little bit of a stretch but generally have been credibly referenced and in the instances where they are " family stories " are clearly stated as such. So do whatever you want, it makes no difference to me but it makes a lot of difference to the people who find Wiki a place of Free Speech and discussion.

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. ''The nature of your reversion of user 's edits seems targeted, and removing content from their user talk page is inappropriate per WP:NOBAN. Please stop. Thank you. --'' DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)4


 * I understand your decision but its also destructive to delete an entire page of which several wiki people have contributed that include relevant articles and references and state they are irrelevant because they have not been previously update on RM genealogy program. There are many credible references on this page which have been ignored and it seems wiki user Wire 723 is dedicated to un ceremoniously deleting all of our good work.  Each time i re do the page, citing references ( which is what i thought wire was referring to ) Trying to improve the page and its credible information, Wire 723 comes along and deletes the lot, each time giving a different reason or none at all.  I dont think that is in good taste or recognizing that Wiki is a community, Rather than deleting everything why not try to help ?!  some guidance from the grand wazoo perhaps ?   either way as soon as i can re edit i will restore our page because while we have tried to make the information as accurate as possible there are some things that just cannot be referenced other than from information handed down and of which was clearly mentioned as personal or speculative. The average reader is fully informed in this case and the page does not give advice or guarantees.  Do we want to lose this information because back in 1432 ad there were no computers to register everything ?  You relaise that even the entry to our family shield which can be read clearly and was translated to english as a reference was also deleted.  If that is not a reference then i do not know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Berardinis M (talk • contribs)
 * I see you write above that "as soon as i can re edit i will restore our page". Seriously? You'll wait out the block and then disrupt the article over again? That's frank. You'll be blocked indefinitely from the article if you do. I advise you to instead read the ANI discussion carefully (you can do that right now), and when the block expires, go to the article's talkpage to discuss. That is the way to get "guidance". Edit warring and disruption is not. To convince us of your good faith, you might also care to explain right here and now if the IPs in the article history, and the account User:Mark de Berardinis are also yours. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen, i can see by what aspects of my email you have given attention to that it is a moot point to continue talking about what is " right for you " compared to discuss what is right for Wiki , you do realise that a lot of contributors on here are not as seasoned as you are ? that we have the time or inclination to get it exact as per your requirements. Guidance and patience would be a better position to take with people like me/us... Why dont you answer the real question that i pose to you now. Why was the entire page deleted by Wire723 originally ? why was Wires excuse to delete all of the information on that page " no Rm, geneology hardly referenced " or words to that effect not taken into consideration ? there are plenty of credible references on that page linking to Municipal Records, University Records and other Publications. Is the Municipal Council of Canzano Italy not credible ? Is it ? because that is exactly why this problem is happening and until you can adress that then i say Wiki is not what i thought it was. Please answer the relevant questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Berardinis M (talk • contribs)


 * Let me try again to elucidate, as I feel you may have missed the key points:
 * The article is (or rather was) a disambiguation page, listing links to articles on people with that surname. While it is okay to include a short explanation of the background or origin of the name, this would normally be a few sentences at most — see eg. this page on Kennedy. If there is then a particular family, or branch of family, that warrants an article, then that should be created separately, not by hijacking the disambiguation page — see eg. Kennedy family.
 * You say that the family history addition was referenced. Yes, it was, but not adequately. To have four sources (discounting the Google Map citation), each cited only once, is nowhere near enough for that length of material, as the vast majority of the content was completely unsupported, and there was therefore no way of knowing where any of that information had come from. Having said which, this is largely irrelevant, per my earlier point.
 * There is a principle called 'bold, revert, discuss' (see WP:BRD) which suggests that if your 'bold' edit (in this case a massive addition of content, and a change of the nature of the article) is reverted, rather than going into edit war over it, you should discuss the matter on the article talk page, to try to reach consensus. You have not discussed anything; instead, you have inserted the content three times (or possibly five, if you are responsible for the edits under the other user name and IP addresses), while accusing other editors of vandalism.
 * Last but not least, you talk of "our page". Let's be clear: the article in question is not yours, in any sense of the word. As I've already highlighted in an earlier warning message on this page, nobody 'owns' articles, and nobody has exclusive rights to decide what happens to them. This includes the article creator (not that you are the creator in this case, but still).
 * Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Double Glazing, thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. Most of these things as a new Wiki ( ite ) were un known to me so thank you for your input and i see now that i was acting defensively to try and protect the page from being deleted.

I did actually read the Talk page, sorry that i misinterpreted that , i thought " Talk " would be a two and fro between people editing the page. In the first Talk point it states

" a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, "

I Interpret that as an invitation to add historical material also to show how the name came about. The name in question is clearly germanic in origin so i wanted to add some background linked to your own Wiki articles showing the historical meaning of the name.

The Disambiguation i agree with, but what started this whole thing was the complete deletion of all references and material. I get now the family thing is not what this page is about, mea culpa , but an honest mistake. However does it warrant deleting everything ? there are good references that are actually pointing to Wiki pages that attempt to explain the names Genealogy. SO im baffled as to why they were deleted .. it seemed to me that everything was taken off without consideration of all the people who contributed to that page. When i say " our " page i mean in the context of the public and wiki enthusiasts. ( just to be clear )

Regarding the Biography talk, the family crest you see there is actually related to one of the people of notable mention and happens to be my first cousin. So i thought it would be of interest to show historical background in relation to that persons name. I see some of it comes across as ostentatious and for that i apologise but to be frank i was so excited to add to that page that i was going into exploring " possibilities ", which was clearly stated so not to mislead, rather than sticking to provable facts. Family history is usually handed down in the form of stories and before computers and the internet thats all we had to document such things. Mind you the direct translation of the document ( family crest ) was also deleted but the crest was left there. So i felt the deletion of these things was not in keeping with Wiki's dynamic it looks to have been executed in an off the cuff manner.

I had received a number of emails thanking me personally for the information provided so honestly i thought what i was doing was a good thing.

So tell me how do we proceed in an amicable manner ?

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for 48 hours for obvious retaliatory editing (following an opponent around and reverting their good edits), including this ridiculous attack on their talkpage. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC).