User talk:Imperator Rafael

November 2017
Hello, I'm NewEnglandYankee. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hadrian without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you believe the informtion is insufficiently sourced, please discuss the matter on the article's Talk page. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 5th of November, 2017 REPLY


 * 1 It was my first edit. I would like to know if removed content has been restored because the Wikipedia reviewers of my edit restored it or because I made 2 more edits without using Wikipedia additional edit guidelines automatically removing the first 2 short edits in some strange Wikipedia automated system?


 * 2. When I tried to post my arguments on Hadrian Talk page I received: "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. Disruptive editing may result in a block from editing.". It was constructed and none vulgar or slang used.  What do you mean by unconstructive?


 * 3 . The adequate explanation was not allowed as I just can make one short sentence explanation as to reason for the edit. I have sent an email to Wikipedia before making an edit with very long professional factual arguments and behind the scenes secret knowledge that might have slander Hadrian with homosexuality.  However my short explanation was 100% adequate and it could never legally/legitimately been rejected so fast as the slander that Emperor Hadrian had male lovers is dangerously incorrect non verifiable speculative accusation without credible, factual, and actual time period accounts, and none current proper 100% comprehension of ancient Latin language that Romans spoke."  I am sorry but this is correct.  There are no factual historical official accounts from Hadrian period that survived.  Quoting an author is not enough as if I was quoting anyone on the street for such a slander.  The author and Wikipedia has to prove making such accusation with official, legitimate, historical papers dated by Italian government agency to the time period of Hadrian (official certification), with concrete and clear account of it and official 100% certain Latin translation.  There is none.  I have read many biographical books and it clearly states there are almost no historical records on Roman history beside Cassius Dio which has not lived during those periods and it is not explained where he obtained this information to write his books and why the references did not survive that he used but his book did.  Translating for current European tribes ancient Latin into certainty is impossible as nobody knows how to speak the ancient Latin.  Especially I noticed the Germans have limited capacity to understand fast and creative New York City English even with full English language skills so imagine ancient Latin with no surviving teachers of that language.  Also note that 100% sure statement that Hadrian had male lovers without voicing any doubt is obviously certain self interest group motivated.  Article without these sentences I want to take out does not deprive the readers of any historical accounts.  Somehow homosexuality of Mr. Charles Windsor is not reported on Wikipedia page with everyone in England knowing, where Emperor's Hadrian without any evidence, eye witnesses, or historical accounts is.  That would contradict disallowing my revision now wouldn't it.  The "cult" of Al Pacino for example or other USA actor does not make him gay or automatically sexual lover of USA president just because he is a favorite actor.


 * The fact that one gay accusation quote comes from British Museum where part of their head of state is known homosexual by the name of Charles Windsor, and brother of his which also could be gay is head of or was head of Freemasonic lodge, and other content coming from Oxford is another proof that those accusations should be removed pending full official review until official ancient Roman records are obtain from Italian Minister of Culture. This slander also would be of interests to homosexual community which has extreme political power in USA and England, and extensive income and political sway in white man countries which can extort illegal influence over English speaking non brave masses.


 * Let me know regarding point 1 and 2 how I can provide my long arguments to the Wikipedia community supporting my edit of Emperor's Hadrian.


 * Imperator Rafael (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. I, personally, reverted your changes. I did so because they are prima facie inconsistent with multiple reliable sources, such as the |Encyclopedia Britannica and |Anthony Everitt's well-researched biography. In such a case, your best recourse is to seek consensus.


 * 2. I don't know why the edit filter rejected your request. As a matter of empirical fact, however, using phraseology like "known homosexual" and alluding to the "extreme political power" of the "homosexual lobby" in "white man countries" is a poor communication technique on Wikipedia. If your contribution to the talk page looked like this, that may have been the reason the edit filter was triggered. The place to raise this is at the false-positives noticeboard.


 * If you want to proceed, I strongly suggest that you limit your argument purely and completely to the reliability of the sources in question. I also strongly suggest that you keep it short, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and verifiability, and that you avoid interposing your political or social views into the discussion. There is at least a possibility that you will find some success if you argue that the sources are not reliable. There is no possibility of making any changes if you allege that some kind of homosexual conspiracy is at work. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)