Jim bexley speed

A descendant of William Darby states that William had the birth record of his elder brother William in his posession. It is thought that this was taken to be that of William Darby (Pablo Fanque). William Darby's recorded age in census returns in more consistent with a birth in 1810 than 1796. Records for the elder child William Darby are as follows (All Saints, Norwich): William son of John Darby and Mary his wife late Mary Stamps spinster was born February 23rd 1796 privately baptised February 28th 1796. William son of John Darby and Mary his wife late Mary Stamps spinster aged 1 year was buried April the 30 1797. all scanned church records available on http://familysearch.org I feel a full explanation of the confusion in the body of the text would distract from the purpose of the entry on Pablo Fanque.

Thanks for including citations. The theory that Fanque was born in 1810 is compelling but still not watertight. The newspaper Era reported contemporaneously on14 May 1871 that Fanque's coffin itself stated that he was 75 suggesting all present were in agreement. Besides asserting that the 1810 birthdate is correct, what support do you have to disprove the 1796 birthdate. You state the child born on that date was buried one year later. How have you documented that. Your scholarship in this area is a great contribution to the public record on this great talent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenebee (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition to the Pablo Fanque page. Your information certainly sheds valuable light on the contradictions in the public record regarding Fanque's age. I suggest you include a citation, since this birthdate has not been otherwise documented. I also call to your attention that Fanque's gravesite monument records him as 75 years old at the time of death (see text below). You should reconcile this fact with your new information within the article.

ALSO THE ABOVE NAMED

WILLIAM DARBY PABLO FANQUE

WHO DIED MAY 4TH 1871 AGED 75 YEARS.

This was my first contribution and I was finding it difficult to insert the reference. This is now rectified. William Darby born 1796 was buried in 1797 aged 1. Both baptism and burial cite William Darby as son of John Darby and Mary née Stamp. The 1810 baptism in St Andrews Workhouse also cites Mary's maiden name as Stamp, confirming that this is a second child named William born to this couple. Though the monument contradicts this age, it clears up the obvious difference in the 1847 report that describes Pablo as about 35. From previous assumptions, he would have been 50 at the time of this article, an unlikely error on the part of the spectator, but from the new birthdate, he was very close to the estimate at 36 years of age.

Due to my lack of familiarity with HTML and the frustration of having accurate corrections reversed, I will no longer attempt to correct the inaccurate birthdate of William Darby. However, anyone who values an accurate record can review this information. As recorded here, William Darby's parents had a son named William in 1796, who was buried the following year. The couple had another son named William in 1810. This birthdate corresponds with a number of records during William's life. It is known that William was in posession of his elder brother's birth record, and it seems likely that this record was taken to be his at the time of his death, and his age was inaccurately recorded by his contemporaries. The fact that John Darby and Mary Stamp's full names are recorded on the births of both sons, and the death of the first proves that William Darby of 1796 died in 1797 and William Darby who became known as Pablo Fanque was the child born in 1810.

Please be aware of the sanctions

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

QuackGuru (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

As my legitimacy as a genuine contributor has been called into question, and I seem unable to comment on the discussion page, I wish to note that my contribution history demonstrates that this is not a new account, nor am I a "sock puppet". My limited contributions are because of my difficulty in the format of Wikipedia and experience of frustrations over proven facts being repeatedly replaced with inaccurate ones. My interest in the e-cigarette related articles are personal, as a user of said devices long after the date that I created my Wikipedia account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.44.153 (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Steve Comisar

Your recent editing history at Steve Comisar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Even though the edits are spaced in time, you should know better than repeatedly reinstate controversial edits with unsubstantial and misleading edit summaries such as "Corrected content". LjL (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Surely a group of individuals reverting my changes makes them, as a collective, equally responsible for "edit warring". The subsequent changes were corrections to previous edits. And you are incorrect, I do not intend on continued "reverting" repeatedly (I was not reverting, I was editing. You and others were reverting)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Jim bexley speed. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
• instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. There has been some concern with Comisar's article in the past, namely that he has asked people to edit the page for him. If you were asked to edit the page, you need to be transparent about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Help needed with Steve Comisar article.

Please be so kind as to help me edit the Steve Comisar article. I see that you have worked on it before. I'm new at this and don't know how to do it. I'd like to add these 2 new sentences to the end of the "career" section:

The FBI ranked Comisar in the top ten con men of all time, second only to Frank Abagnale, the subject of the motion picture, Catch Me if You Can, directed by Steven Spielberg.[12] Comisar had supporting roles as an actor in various motion pictures, television shows, and commercials.[3]

[12] is a new link from "The New York Observer" (reliable source): http://observer.com/2015/11/how-watching-mr-robot-made-me-paranoid-about-getting-hacked/

(see last 2 pages of Observer article referencing Comisar)

[3] is the existing link from the GQ Magazine article.

Thanks for your help with this. I'm only a beginner. Curiouskitten777 (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

GQ article is a reliable source.

The GQ article is a reliable source. It was an investigative piece written by Sabrina Erdely, an award-winning journalist. (see her Wikipedia page) The article clearly references Comisar's acting. GQ was used to reference Comisar's acting in the very first version of the article. Every subsequent version of the article over the past 4 years mentioned his acting until last month. The mention of his acting only became problematic when IMDb was added as an additional reference. One short sentence about his acting, referenced by GQ, at the end of the career section seems reasonable. This in no way implies that he is notable as an actor. This merely reveals the biographical fact that he did some acting. If anyone agrees, please edit.

"Comisar had supporting acting roles in several motion pictures, television shows, and commercials.[3]"

[3] GQ article link.

I also strongly disagree that the Observer piece is not a reliable source. It was not an opinion piece, and it was not from a blog. It was an investigative article from the actual New York Observer newspaper, a very reliable source. (see their Wikipedia page) I'd ask that you please reconsider this edit as well. If anyone agrees, please edit.

"The FBI has ranked Comisar in the top ten con men of all time, second only to Frank Abagnale, the subject of the motion picture, Catch Me if You Can, directed by Steven Spielberg.[12]"

[12] The New York Observer http://observer.com/2015/11/how-watching-mr-robot-made-me-paranoid-about-getting-hacked/

I completely agree with everything else that all of the other editors had to say about this article. A big heartfelt thanks to @Tokyogirl79, @DanielRigal, @LjL, and @Onel5969, for educating me on the Wikipedia editing process. You all seem like very intelligent, dedicated, and decent people. Keep up the good work. 205.115.188.114 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)