User talk:Chiboyers

Barbaros

I recommend that you just stay away from all articles having to do with the Barbaro family. Other editors are working on checking the sources of the removed information, and whatever turns out to be accurate will be readded. If you persist in reverting these articles, you will almost certainly be blocked again. Deor (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and I have also received a block again from Starblind- please also lift that. I will leave it up to you to revert, but for the record, I have seen the case file that Daniel presented to me- The problematic areas pertain to The Pugilist Club and the Sacred Order of Skull and Cresent- I have never heard of any such groups, those should NEVER be attributd to this Barbaro family. Also, I know that there is some concern about user McTrain as Daniel expressed- I don't really know how this user fits into the hoax because what is he has contributed is accurate info and legitimately sourced- so there is some mix up somewhere, and when I looked at his contribution record- there is no indicator of any pugilist club or sacred order writings-so defintely there is some confussion with Wiki administrators as well. Basing just on the Barbaro family articles and sourcing- there is nothing wrong for sure with that info.Chiboyers (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I unblocked you because the evidence was too thin. I did not unblock you because I thought that the Barbaro info you are trying to add was free from hoax content. I strongly advise you not to try to add that info again. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand, I will leave it up to you/wiki admins. to make the appropriate reverting.Chiboyers (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Permanently blocked

User was miraculously unblocked yesterday after much promising to be good, but almost immediately readded the long-running "Vitus Barbaro" hoax (in this edit), pretty much eliminating any possibility of doubt that this is yet another tiki-two/mctrain sock. The user will almost surely attempt to argue that they aren't mctrain, etc, but it matters little: repeatedly re-adding long-running hoax material is unacceptable in any event, whether from a "brand-new" user or a new sock of an old vandal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • No, this is unfair and untrue. I have never edited anthing on the Barbaro family page except for correcting the spelling on the word Von to von, which you can check for yourself. Infact, I have never edited much of anytrhing on wikipedia except for spelling, linking a word or very minor stuff, the bulk of what I had contributed was on the circumcision talk page, which is an aera of personal research for me. All I ever did to Barbaro subject matter was revert back to a previous edition based on what I know is accurate and well sourced material, but I have never written anything myself on any Barbaro family page. I also engaged in a long conversation with Daniel yesterday about this topic, I said that I could confirm what was accurate, but that I would never feel comfortable with changing a red link into a blue, so Starbling you are just making stuff up, and given the behaviors and false accusation that I experienced personally, i know that your picture of a hoax is wrong somewhere. I told Daniel yesterday that I am not defending anyone but myself and/or what I know is accuarte- and I can tell you that what was on that Barbaro family page is perfectly fine and sourced legitimately. Now, if you desire to limit accurate knowledge- than say so, I even told Daniel yesterday that I really don't care that much what you do with the article. Today, I just saw that no one did anything, so I thought it would help out to revert back to what I know is accurate after what we discussed yesterday- now, if you are telling me not to revert back, which no one said to me yesterday, then fine- I'll leave it up to you then to do that- no biggie- I did not think that I was doing was something that was so contraversial as your behavior seems to suggest.

• • Now, if you do not want me to revert, than fine and I won't, but given my personal experience of false accusations and radical blocking for what I or anyone else would not deem as anything worthy off it, I would like to close with some final remarks. First, Daniel tells me that there is some hoax going on with with Barbaro subject matter pertaining to a pugilist club and some knigthood of the sacred order of skull and crescent- I have NEVER heard of any such groups, and I have NEVER heard of the Barbaro family being conected to any such groups- so clearly, that material is hoax-like, or at least, coming from some very obscure source that not anyone/or many could ever verify- that should be removed, and when I got to the Barbaro family article it was. Now, there is alot of talk with this user McTrain, and I am not defending him, but what I can say and see is that this user never wrote about anything with a pugilist club/and or sacred order, and the things he did write about, mainly historical, are excellent, accurate and well sourced- so something is wrong here. This Tiki-two editor seems to have been a hoaxer, or at least a bad writer/editor/sourcer, but McTrain does not appear to be the same person, and he has dedicated excellent work for a long period of time- I also see that you have blocked a large number of people, 20+ as all hoaxers, I have to say that it seems inaccurate- there is some mix-up somewhere- and peoploe now seem to radically be chiseling away quality work left and right. The Francesco Barbaro page alone has a link with the bulk of the info coming from it that anyone themselves can see right now a accurate- so there is plently of mindless destruction happening here. The other issue is why if some puglist club articel was written wasn't it just flagged with a "possible hoax" flag- you do have those , I have seen them on wiki before- what caused such a big deal with any of you guys that made it nessesary to go off in the manner that you did- you are fixed on a past hoax that is not, at the momment, connected to anything that I have seen recently to Barbaro subject matter- so my advice is you better back up and rethink what you are doing. If you do not want me to revert, than I won't, but I am telling you, unequivically and without any fear of doubt, that what I reverted back to was and is 1 million percent historically accurate. I know Aldo Barbaro was accurate and that article has since been removed, I even know that Johannes Barbaro was accurate, he is the first sourced memeber of the family, some historicans comment on how old families often have rather mythical-like figures in the geneology, like an Alba-liong king or whatever, and they always talk about the Barbaro family's Johannes as one such figure of a very old family- so you guys are way off somewhere, now,I am done with this topic becasue it is too problematic, and if you do not want me to revert, than say so and I won't, but for the record, you guys are wrong- the club/skull stuff was hoaxish, but what you are reverting now is not and just causing mass damage across Barbaro subject matter. Now, please lift my block and there are one of two things that I can do: 1) walk away from any reverting of Barbaro subject matter, and continuing a non-existant hoax and poor portrayal of a rather significant historical subject for an encyclopedia. or 2) I can revert back to what I know is 100% accurate and properly sourced validly, and I can help you guys out. Now, that choice is up to you, and I will abide by the choice you make for me, but I do please want your answer and I would please like my block lifted. Thank you.Chiboyers (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I deserve to have an unjust block lifted

Now, I would like my block lifted, and I see no point to have to suffer unjustly from a premise that user Starblind has clearly made up- Some of you are just prejudiciously chosing to be destructive towards this subject matter with no good reason now, and it is quite clear that you have harrassed several people. I asked for a simple decision on your part at the bottom of the previous paraghraph which I said I would abide to, and all of you have ignored, and I continue to be unjustly blocked- this is not fair and not right, and your attitude towards me as well as this subject matter is irrational. You have/had several well written and well sourced Barbaro articles with valid sourcing that you could have checked for yourself, but you did not and you continue to spreasd lies about other people behavior, and who cares about some club article that no one gives a hoot about, do you really think that the pugilist club or some knighthood that no one has ever heard of really matters to anyone except the person who wrote it, especially at the cost of significant historical subject matter- that truely is encyclopedia worthy, and in comparison to every "Ali Lohan" and other article of no consequence. Your behavior is stupid. you could of just flagged that puglist club article with a possible hoax flag, and that would have been the end of it- you didn't even have to remove it to neutralize it, yet instead you chose to go through all of this, and continue to go through all of this. I think you like perpetuating the idea of "hoax", which is another form of a hoax in itself. Now, please tell me the desicion you came up with in reference to what I asked, and please unblock my account. This is very very unfair. Chiboyers (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you went and reverted the articles saying that you had discussed it with me does little to show your good faith. To be honest the thing that makes me most suspicious (beyond the edits) is the fact that you say you can verify this information is 1 million percent accurate, this has been a tactic used by the sock group in question from the start. I would never say that I can verify any article is 100 percent accurate, let alone one as long as the Barbaro Family and especially not after being told that the article was edited by a known sock puppeter and hoaxer. There is no chance I am going to unblock you after you reverted the articles and said I told you that it was ok. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not true, I did discuss the matter with you, and you informed me about the hoax material of the pugilist club and knighthood of the skull and crescent, which I told you that I did not accept that material as valid and that there was no such matter in the article that I saw in the version reverted. I also told you that I wanted to respond to garycomputergeek on the circumcion talk page, which is my primary topic of concern- but you never informed me that reverting was an issue, and I just asked today for someone to give me an answer to that which I would abide to- so this is not fair. If you are telling me now not to revert, than that is fine- I even said that I understand, now, above to user Deor, before Starblind jumped in, blocked me, and said that I added hoax material to the article- which I never did, I just reverted to a previous article- that's all, so this is not fair- all you have/had to say is don't revert that's all, and I would have/will not do so, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. As for the accuracy, it is pretty clear to confirm because there is nothing of great depth about the Barbaro family in this article, it is all well known information from general well known sources- it would be different if there was some complete family tree mapped out, that would be far more difficult to verify in complete accuracy, but anyone that is familiar with this topic would clearly see that what is in this article is rather elmentary info about the Barbaro family in general- that's all, but if you are unfamiliar with this family, then I can see why you may have doubts, but I don't, so please unblock me .Chiboyers (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, all you have to say is don't revert back to the previous Barbaro family articles- and I won't, no biggie- sorry for the misunderstnding and please may I be unblocked now, a misunderstanding is not bad faith.Chiboyers (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)