D.A.V.I.D.

Baron de Longueuil

What is the purpose of your edits to the above article? You are rendering the tense grammatically incorrect, and inserting an unexplained italicization.GSTQ (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Will you kindly reply to my post, instead of continuing to edit the tense of the article?GSTQ (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for providing a quotation from the text of the letters patent. The text, however, does not provide, as you appear to believe, that the title is to be passed on to Charles Le Moyne's French descendants. The words "plainement et paisiblement relevant de nous à cause de nostre couronne" are a standard formula in letters patent to reserve to the monarch the right to revoke the title and grant it to another if the holder rises up in arms against the crown. They do not extinguish the title once the holder leaves the monarch's jurisdiction whether temporarily or permanently. Besides, how many people are there these days in full and peaceable subjection to the French crown? Your gloss of "French descendants" is quite misleading. It can hardly be contended that the effect of the letters patent is to prefer citizens of the French Republic over subjects of the Queen of Canada to the succession of the title. And even if it could be so contended, Wikipedia is not the place for it. This matter appears now to be quite definitively settled once and for all.GSTQ (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you GSTQ for your translation and your commentary! I am waiting it for a long time. I am going to take again the analysis of these text and illegitimate situation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by D.A.V.I.D. (talk • contribs)

I don't know how you can have been waiting for my translation and commentary for a long time. The extract concerning succession to the title was only entered in the article yesterday. I don't really have that much opportunity to get on a 'plane and drop into the Archives de Québec very often. I've absolutely no idea what you mean by "taking again the analysis of these text" or what the "illegitimate situation" you're talking about is. Perhaps if you want to discuss the article further you should do so on its talk page.GSTQ (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/D.A.V.I.D. for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. GSTQ (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/D.A.V.I.D.. Souht is blocked as an WP:SPA and you are warned not to sock again. 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/D.A.V.I.D. (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. GSTQ (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You were warned, but appear to have continued to use multiple accounts to push your point of view. _GB^T/C 16:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

_GB^T/C 16:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)