User talk:Ogdennis

Hello, I am a little new to wiki, yet when I did a search on the term the article came up.

While the information on the man named Ingenuus is presumed to be accurate, it is distorting and causing me some legal problems.

Your article creates the impression that the legal term "ingenuus" is some how associated with the term "usurper". While I am sure you have no intentions of slandering me, take NOTICE that I have legal documents where in I describe my self with this term: ingenuus.

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]:

'''INGENUI, civ. law. Those freemen who were born free'''. Vicat, vocab. 2. They were a class of freemen, distinguished from those who, born slaves, had afterwards legally obtained their freedom the latter were called at various periods, sometimes liberti, sometimes libertini. An unjust or illegal servitude did not prevent a man from being ingenuus.

I adjusted the article to abate the possibility that I may be inadvertently seen as a terrorist!!!

Kindly restore the article.

Thank you.

Ummm...

Im sorry... I believe your edit also uses the term usurper as well. I was quickely trying to clear up an obviously vandalized page with a quick edit undo. Obviously you are more attached to the subject that I, so I invite you to clear the matter up.

Dear Ogdennis;

First the legal term is defined, and then the article on the man Ingenuus is read. I did make a couple of change in the article as well. I presented him first as the commander... then lead into his failed attempt to usurp the Roman Empire. Might I bring you mind to the likeliness that Rome's records are going to be biased and make the man out to be a monster?

I was simply trying to maintain the integrity of the original work but also present it in a way that didn't distort the legal term.

I noticed this particular article was also a part of more underlaying wiki infrastructure... "biography portal", was that the term, or something like this?

I am interested in the definition of the word being preserved. Simply "freemen who were born free."

I had no intention of vandalizing the page or distorting the facts regarding the man. As I am not that familiar with this particular aspect of history, do you believe I succeeded?

Also, What did I fail to do that makes you say it was "obviously vandalized"?

Like I said, I am a little new to wiki... Kindly forgive my lack of knowledge of wiki customs.

Sincerely,

aksis