Talk:Francesco Barbaro (politician)

Source

This comes from "Scorsa di un lombardo negli archivj di Venezia", By Cesare Cantù, 1856, pg.127:

FRANCESCO BARBARO kr fu di CANDIANO Allo stesso duca. Ando seco per segratario Febo Capella. Questo ambasciadore Barbaro giunto dinanzi al duca, perdette la memoria, e non pote fare il suo ufficio. Fu celebre senatore e letterato, e a leggersene la vita scritta dal padre Giovanni degli Agostini nel vol. II pag. 28, degli Scrittori Veneziani. Era stato interrato con inscrizione in santa Maria Gloriosa de'Frari.

pg.128

ZACCARIA BARBARO kr fu di FRANCESCO d. k. proc. Al medesimo per giustificare la repubblica delle novita tentate in Milano da Roberto Sanseverino. Zaccaria Barbaro celebre senatore moro del 1492, ed e sepolito con epigraph in San Fresco della Vigna.

Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting a valid source

Someone keeps reverting the vaild sourcing that I brought up. I don't know what the issue is, but the source is valid and the information is good and more complete. Stop reverting what is a completely vaid and good source to use. Use your barain. The source is valid and the ionformation is good. 63.26.30.239 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• When a know hoaxer is [1] is using their variable IP to evade multiple blocks (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs, then further edits from them can and should be reverted on sight. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Corrupt Wikipedia practices

administrators make up excuses to vandalize pages. They don't follow any rules, and they falsely block people and say lies. When someone adds a valid source of information, and cites the information, and then administrators remove it just because they feel like, or based on a falsehood, they are no better than any corrupt dictator. Recent reverting practices by administrators prove that now, and have been the case over and over again. They just do whatever they want, unchecked by reason, truth, and valid sourcing. They make up cases against certain topics- which is not fair. They control mediocre pages to never be where they should be.4.143.237.116 (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• When a know hoaxer is [2] is using their variable IP to evade multiple blocks (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs, then further edits from them can and should be reverted on sight. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Gilberg/bucher source

This source is perfectly valid with all info from it in citation. There is no logical reason to remove it- you can check it for yourself. Removal would mean that there is prejudice and corruption at work. 63.26.135.85 (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• When a know hoaxer is [3] is using their variable IP to evade multiple blocks (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs, then further edits from them can and should be reverted on sight. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a lie, you falsely accused countless people of vandalism, I had nothing to do with those other editors- you are the one saying that many good-faith editors were hoaxers. You went and built up this big bogus list of yours based on corruption- blocking people that made good-faith edits and saying that they were part of a hoax, making them unable to defend themselves, and despertately trying to add more and more IP's to your list. IP's that don't even match. Please do tell me where in any Barbaro subject matter there was a hoax- it never existed; Spretti, and Bucher and all edits were all valid, from valid sources with excellent information. You just don't want to admit that you made a mistake early on and carried all of this nonsense to no end- you don't want to admit that even now you are wrong- you have a stub article that none can expand on- you lable everyone a hoaxer, and you revert valid sources and information. It is against Wiki-policy to block anyone who are making good-faith edits, your attempts at blocking now are even corrupt- you are wrong Edward321, and you know it- why don't you just be man enough to say the sourcing is valid, and it was a good-faith edit with citation- you can use your brain if you wanted to, instead of trying desperately to find any excuse possible to revert a good edit.63.26.32.123 (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators back to the same old tricks

blocking users- This Edward321 lies- he likes to say people are "hoaxers working around a block"- not true, so then he is able to then revert valid and sourced information. These are the old tricks that these administrator kids have been doing time in and time again for many many users. These administrators are absolutely corrupt, they are absolutely unfair, they are unreasonable and unprofessional...they are immature kids on their litte power trips- blocking whomever they want. There is NO Wikipedia policy that allows any administrator to block a good-faith editor when they add valid and sourced information. But these guys are predjudice and have an agenda- and when a good-faith editor comes along, they have no other corrupt tactic to use then to falsely lable them a hoaxer working around a block, block the good-faith editor and then do whatever they want- how un-American, how unjust, how corrupt. The people need to speak up against these corrupt administrators!!!63.26.42.122

Beware of several problematic administrators whom block unjustly including Deor, Edward321, and Starblind to just name a few.63.26.42.122 (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• When a know hoaxer is [4] is using their variable IP to evade multiple blocks (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs, then further edits from them can and should be reverted on sight. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Valid Sourcing

When an editor provides valid sourcing with citation, leave it alone. Don't behave mindlessly saying everything is a hoax. An article that is a stub meant to grow, will not grow if you harass everyone who knows something about this topic- and contributes in good-faith.4.143.234.59 (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• When a know hoaxer is [5] is using their variable IP to evade multiple blocks (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs, then further edits from them can and should be reverted on sight. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

More BS already addressed above- your list is something that you made up and built on a false premise- Your list has no credibility- you just went and blocked every good-faith editor so they could not respond to your corruption- then you go around flaunting this bogus list to everyone and saying "see it is all a hoax"- what BS- there isn't anyone on that list of yours where you can point out even one edit that wasn't made in good-faith. give us all a break!63.26.32.123 (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)