User talk:Vernon John De Duckmanton

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. The article you created at Nigel De Stafford appears to be copied from HISTORY OF DERBYSHIRE. Unless you are the author of the original information and you are able to release it under the GFDL then the page will need to be deleted. Please see Copyrights for further information. Even if this is a copyright violation, we would still welcome any original contributions from you. See the instructions on how to edit a page for more info. Thanks.- Fennec 04:30, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The contributions you are making are not helpful. Please bear this in mind before making further edits. If you would like to experiment, please use the Sandbox. Fennec 04:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sir, your last email to me was particularly cryptic, particularly where it asked me to "refrain from touching my user page links"; I have neither performed such an act, nor do I plan on it. Your insinuation, however, that the user space is exempt from copyright restrictions (with regards to copyright infringements or to the GFDL) or that your user page is private are, however, incorrect and contrary to policy. I suggest that you read User page for information on user pages at Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I dislike being called an "Arrogant little Barstead". It's not friendly, and violates our no personal attacks policy, even if it is carried out in email and not on the wiki itself.

Finally, I do not believe that Wikipedia is the place for your work. Wikipedia is not the place for your translations and essays. This is an encyclopedia, not a source text repository. I hope that you realize that I am not attempting to "undermine a Dukes work", but merely to ensure that it takes place in a proper location, which Wikipedia is not.

Finally, please contact me at User talk:Fennec for further discusson in this matter, rather than using email. Thanks. -Fennec 15:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your Concerns
Sir, though you refuse to reply on a talk page, I will reply to your email point by point here. I have placed a copy of it on a web server. Please, discuss this on Wikipedia for the affair is related to Wikipedia and as such may be relevant to any further discussion of your activity at wikipedia. Thanks.

First of all, I see that I misunderstood your use of the term "links". I though you were referring to the actual links on your user page. It seems that you instead refer to the pages referenced by those links. With regards to that, I will remind you that according to Copyrights policy, you release all contributions under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. If you do not agree to this license, you must not edit Wikipedia. This is standard policy. It is generally regarded as a faux pas to consider an article as your own: Wikipedia articles are not owned by any particular user.

Regarding being "bossed around" by any particular user, I refer you to pages such as Votes for Deletion where your pages are listed, and Copyright problems, which describes policy on copyright violation. I am not bossing you around; I am merely applying Wikipedia policy. Any of my other suggestions are here for your benefit, to help you understand Wikipedia policy so you can better follow it.

I question your qualifications in psychology, and consider your references to mythological foxes and even what you refer to as the "True Bible" as spurious and irrelevant. Furthermore, your contributions thus far to Wikipedia have largely not been facts, as you put it, but translations or transcriptions of source material. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines as well.

I would rather not disclose my full name here on the Internet in a public space at this time; I value some degree of privacy and a trivial amount of anonymity. If you desire to know of my family history, know this: My paternal line comes to Connecticut in the 1700s, and from there the area of England known as The Wash, wherein my ancestors dwelt for centuries; they were involved in the loss of King John's treasure referenced in that article. My maternal line comes from Poland, where my great-grandfather was a war hero in the first world war; his family was therefore sent to a Soviet labor camp in Siberia, and eventually made their way through exotic lands such as India before arriving in Pennsylvania. Prior to that my ancestors were involved in numerous uprisings against their oppressors.

You write Only the Royal Family can write "History" unless Academically qualified by an institution they found. This policy is not an accepted standard at Wikipedia. If you would like to propose it, however, raise the issue at the Village Pump.

If you are indeed a scholar of law and history at Oxford, where can we see evidence of this? I would think that an Oxford graduate would be better able to apply the rules of English grammar. Your message is riddled with misuses of the comma (run-on sentences), Odd Random Capitalizations, erratic word forms ("falsity"), and oddly conjugated verbs. Perhaps you attended as an exchange student, and English is not your native tongue? In any event, if you have any contacts who we can use at Oxford or at the institution in Syracuse to which you refer, I would be quite be interested in confirming your status.

With regards to your essays, please note that no original research is allowed at Wikipedia. With regards to your oft-referenced family title, please note that Wikiquette implies that demanding the use of your title when being addressed is ludicrous. Wikipedia does not differentiate between royalty and commoners in this fashion.

I regard your reference to the user name Fennec as "Barstard" and any related disparagements as personal attacks, and if such attacks continue I will bring them attention to the community, whereupon you can expect censure, and may eventually become blocked. I reiterate that I have no intention of revealing my identity in this forum, nor do I have any intention of distributing it to you.

Your insinuation that I am not qualified to argue on behalf of Wikipedia, with the associated implication that you are, is dubious at best and laughable at worst. Finally, I do not intend to defend myself to you any more; if you care to discuss matters rationally without hiding behind a front such as royalty or implied divine right, I will gladly accomodate you; further attacks which might suggest a defense will be brought to the attention of the community, and will be dealt with.

Thank you for your time. - Fennec 03:01, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

A Matter of Rights
''DONT Discuss this Web Page as it is Personal: Personal Law Office advised via Pitts and Tucker, Privy Council Agents, London, England. '' - your solicitors have advised you that other people don't have the right of free speech? Have they also advised you that English law doesn't apply if people email you from other countries? RickK 01:26, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * See below, RickK. :) - Fennec 14:08, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

You write:
 * The discussion anon has ended for now, so dont explode my web page with idol chit chat defense [sic]. You dont accept my Right and I dont accept your work to be concerned with mine [sic].
 * And always address me as "Your Grace" if in any future, we Talk again. Your concerns are noted and considered. But you lack authority in my word and thought but maybe Not for Wikipedia Help as in is Infant. All Talk comes to and end. consider this my final comment to you. And in closing remember in future dont continue unabated to address a member of a Royal family once instructed in correct Protcol [sic].

In lieu of a "defense" I suggest that you run future letters by a professional copyeditor so that your English reach a level of accuracy at which people will take you seriously as an author of encyclopedic information, let alone taking seriously your claim of a Dukedom. - Fennec 14:04, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Your Dukedom
I have found a page about the people you bought your fake dukedom from: http://www.faketitles.com/html/british_feudal_investments.html. This explains just about everything, especially the mediocre English. - Fennec 14:08, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it illegal in the UK to claim a title you don't have the legal right to? RickK 19:36, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

"Your" articles
Book of Zareil was deleted by community consensus on Votes for deletion. A reminder or two: Thank you for your concern in these matters. Additionally, you should consider: Thank you for your concern in these matters. -Fennec 20:51, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * You should not re-create this article.
 * If you wish the article to be restored, see Votes for undeletion.
 * If you re-create the article, it may be deleted, speedily.
 * You probably should not create any articles similar in form and content to this one.
 * removing the imperative to "not discuss this page" from your user page
 * someone could construe this as a legal threat. If you do not remove it, someone else might, as a matter of policy.
 * Conducting Wikipedia-related correspondence HERE, on THIS PAGE.