Please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic ban on User:Finneganw at Anna Anderson]]. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan|talk]]) 10:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic ban on User:Finneganw at Anna Anderson]]. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan|talk]]) 10:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
:Hello Finneganw. If you will promise not to edit [[Anna Anderson]] or the article's talk page for a period of time (e.g. six months) your formal ban from that article may still be avoided. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
:Hello Finneganw. If you will promise not to edit [[Anna Anderson]] or the article's talk page for a period of time (e.g. six months) your formal ban from that article may still be avoided. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
== Topic Ban on [[Anna Anderson]] ==
I have reviewed the discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=305538861 the Administrators Noticeboard]. There is a clear consensus that your continued participation at [[Anna Anderson]] is unhelpful to this encyclopedia. You are therefore topic banned from both the Anna Anderson article and its talkpage. To be clear, this means that the person behind the Finneganw account may no longer edit either of those pages; you may not edit either page using alternative accounts or unlogged in.
I am the bearer of bad news, I realize. I would, however, encourage you to continue editing Wikipedia, and contributing to other articles, since you clearly have much skill and knowledge to offer on various topics. Observing the topic ban and contributing in a collegial fashion to WP on other articles will be the best way of proving to all your commitment to the project, and will offer the best chance of the topic ban being lifted in the future. --[[User:Slp1|Slp1]] ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection for this page due to the edits of the unregistered user. I've already reverted his/her edits twice today. It may need to be reverted again if he keeps coming back.--Bookworm85715836712:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just Wondering...
Why you continue to delete the changes i make to the anna anderson article. i know you think the article is wonderful in it's current form, but you shouldn't continue to go back and remove everything that people add to the article. that isn't the wikipedia way. Best wishes, Ono21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look -- I don't want to start another edit war here, but I do think it's relevant that Princess Xenia continued to believe that Anderson was Anastasia, even after she'd been ordered out of the house. Her opinion surely has as much validity as Prince Christopher's. It isn't saying that Princess Xenia was right or wrong, but that is the opinion she held. The quotes I added are sourced, complete with page number. The date that Botkin met Anna Anderson was also 1927, not 1928, according to Kurth's book. I went back and looked it up after the comments that ChatNoir posted on the discussion page. I know Prince Christopher's connection to Princess Xenia. I don't think he actually met Anna Anderson. If I'm wrong and there's a reference in his books to him having met her and formed personal impressions, I have no problem with that being added, along with the page numbers, title, author, etc. Fairness demands that both sides be presented. --Bookworm85715836712:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, refrain from refering to my edits as vandalism, and follow the Manual of Style
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
Do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Also, do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Note that continuing your current practices will lead to blocks for disruption. Thankyou. Atropos00:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've been doing. Those are subsections of the previous section; they have four equals instead of three.
Atropos please see messages on your talk page. We're all still learning here. Thanks for your kind assistance! Finneganw 02:18, 29 July 2007
Fox Foundation
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Fox Foundation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Tikiwont08:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to your question on my talk page, see above link. Moreover, you state the problem well in a different context.[1] --Tikiwont15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Anderson/Franziska Schanzkowska
I don't agree that she should be identified as Franziska Schanzkowska. The article as it was written already said that most historians believe she was Schanzkowska and that the mitochondrial DNA was a match to Karl Maucher's. It's very possible to share mitochondrial DNA with someone who is not a close relative. It's not conclusive proof of identity -- just very strong circumstantial evidence. If you would like to add a line to the effect that two historians believe she was Schanzkowska, though Peter Kurth does not, I would find that acceptable. I do not agree to a flat out statement that she WAS Franziska Schanzkowska. --Bookworm85715836717:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Anderson/Franziska Schanzkowska
Sorry, but I will not agree to identify her as Franziska Schanzkowska. I agree that it is likely that she was Schanzkowska, but the article already says that. I have added a line to the opening graph saying that Franziska Schanzkowska was fingered as her likely identity in the 1920s and that Schanzkowska was born in 1896 in Poland, but that her supporters still deny that she was Schanzkowska. That's accurate. I will not agree to listing her as Franziska Schanzkowska definitely in the box or as "born Franziska Schanzkowska." There is no flat-out identity. All that is clear, if the DNA testing is accepted as accurate, is that she was a person who shared mtDNA with the Schanzkowski family. If I remember right, that's a DNA profile that is fairly common in Germany. I could share it; you could share it. This person, if not Schanzkowska, may have shared a many times great-grandmother and mtDNA. That's all the DNA testing proved. Add the other evidence and it looks even more likely, but again it's not a definite identity. The names she did use were Anna Anderson and Anastasia Manahan, so those are what she should be called in the article. --Bookworm85715836717:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Anderson/Franziska Schanzkowska, ad nauseum
I don't know what my DNA profile is or whether it's a similar profile. I do recall reading that a large number of unrelated or distantly related people can share the same DNA profile. She can't be identified as Franziska Schanzkowska. All we can say is that she was PROBABLY Schanzkowska, based on the DNA and circumstantial evidence. This is what we have already said in that article. We also said that some others disputed it. I will not agree to say she was Schanzkowska, just that she was likely Schanzkowska. --Bookworm85715836717:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting the additions you're making? Please include citations (author, title, page number) after every line. The major problem with this article continues to be the biased statements that are made on both sides without clear citations. I'd have to have every book referenced to be able to make any headway in fixing it and I don't. "Suspicioned" is not a word. Please change it to "suspected."
--Bookworm85715836703:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you provided references here, but you have a tendency to write "ibid." in some cases. I can't tell what book you are referring to there when you do that. There are multiple books and web sites referenced. Also, please list the author first: Hall, Coryne, Book Title, publication information, etc. There's a certain style that should be used in citations. Take a look at one of the featured articles to see how it is done. It's done properly in the Grand Duchess Anastasia article, which I brought up to featured article status a few months ago. It went through a couple of peer reviews and that style is the one that is most accepted. It's good that you're providing the references, but you're making it impossible for anyone else who edits it to tell where you got the information. Better to write using a neutral tone too. Personal opinions don't belong in an article like the Anna Anderson article. You need to find an author who has said something like "There is no proof of her claims regarding such and such situation." Also better not to use a word like "infamous" in front of cart rescue unless you can find an author who has CALLED it infamous. Then you can write something like: "According to John Doe, Anderson's story about her rescue by cart was infamous and no one believed it." The only way to bring the Anderson article up to snuff is to provide citations from solid, well-respected references after every single line. I have my doubts that some of the Web sites you cited are solid and well-respected, but I've left them in for now and just edited to provide more balance or added a citation needed tag. The biographies and the European History journal article are far more respectable. --Bookworm85715836704:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found many different solid sources to back up the things I've put in the AA article article and all Chat does is put "Harriet Rathlef" and "Peter Kurth" on whatever he wants to say. Take a look at the Sophie article, I found solid proof from valid sources that the betrayal story rumor about the jewels in the clothes was completely false and invented by the authors of a certain book, as I had suspected. I found proof in the 1995 book "Fall of the Romanovs" by Steinberg and Krustalev, and they were the first to write a book using the real recently declassified ex Soviet documents. It clearly states in several places they had no idea there were jewels in the clothes until after the family was dead and stripped in the forest. I certainly hope no AA supporter will delete itAggiebean (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: ibid.
It's been awhile since I was in college, but I remember what "ibid" means. You can't operate under the assumption that every new editor is going to have access to the works you are using or will be able to check them. When you write ibid. after a reference, how is someone to know which of the many references in an article is being referred to, even if he or she wanted to check them? That's why you need to use a different system. Like I said, check the way it's done in one of the featured articles. The citations are looked at carefully before they're approved by the peer review for FA status. On second reference, use the name of the author and the page number -- "Hall, pp. 247-248" instead of "ibid." You also shouldn't be sticking a web site link in between reference tags. There's a specific format that's used for referencing web sites, a different one for books, a different one for magazine articles, etc. Again, take a look at the featured articles to see all of the different styles. You should be able to copy one of the formats, paste it into the Anderson article and then just plug in the info from your web site. It would help a lot if you'd do that with those web sites you used as references. I'd really like to see this article with good references. As for bias -- I'm a newspaper reporter. I've been trained to write neutrally. Wikipedia guidelines also forbid personal opinions under the No Original Research policy. When you add an inflammatory word like "infamous" in front of "cart story" without attributing the opinion to an author, it looks like your personal opinion even if you found it in a text. It's always better to use neutral language and to give page numbers and say who said it was "infamous." This is a volatile topic. There are many editors who don't agree with you. You're begging someone like that anonymous editor to come along and start another edit war. This article needs to present both sides neutrally and fairly, while acknowledging the DNA test results and what most scientists and historians think they mean. That doesn't mean YOU can call her infamous or a fraud or even Franziska. It means you can quote people who have. I didn't see neutral language in the additions that were made last night by you or by that anonymous editor, who also didn't cite all his sources. --Bookworm85715836711:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Fox Foundation"
Sarah I'm not sure you fully understand the nature of this organisation. It awards Doctoral degrees only and is highly respected. In fact it rejects many who apply for accrediation through their existing lesser degrees. It works through many different universities and their academics. There would appear to be no valid grounds to delete the page apart from perhaps a lack of knowledge of the foundation. Does wikipedia delete an entry simply because some readers do not fully understand a page? Surely an organisation should not have to justify itself when its reason for being is already well known. Finneganw 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course an article subject has to justify its inclusion. This has been explained to you before. See Notability and Verifiability. If this organisation is as respected and reputable as you claim, then it will be easy to produce some verifiable and reliable sources. In which case the article will be saved from deletion, but as it stands now it will be deleted as unverifiable and a probable hoax, particularly in light of the webpage listed as the only link. If as you say, the only reason for deletion, is ignorance on the part of the editors who have reviewed the article, then that is the surely the fault of the article's author who failed to cite a single source or reference. Sarah05:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Anderson et. al
The anonymous poster beginning with 72 --- hasn't actually violated the three revert rule as far as I can see. If he does, report him and ask to have him blocked. Technically that line he removed the last time probably does need to be attributed to a source. Kurth himself may have said it in the Tsar book, which I don't have at my fingertips. I reverted him once already. --Bookworm85715836714:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Anderson
I think it would be safe to say, then, that survival stories were testified to in court, but no proof was offered. That's more accurate than "word of mouth." Also, Peter Kurth has expressed objections on the talk page to the extensive references to Prince Christopher's book in the article. He said that Prince Christopher's book was ghostwritten and the prince never met Anna Anderson. Given his knowledge of the subject, I'm inclined to believe him and think that fact really ought to be checked. I haven't read Prince Christopher's books and don't know for certain. --Bookworm85715836713:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that Prince Christopher actually wrote the books and met Anna Anderson? When someone like Kurth makes that assertion, I hesitate to dismiss it out of hand. Other books by royalty from that time period were ghost written. I still have quite a bit of respect for Kurth and the research that he did. In any case, I told him that he would have to cite a published source, his own or someone else's, saying that Prince Christopher's books were ghostwritten and the prince didn't know Anna Anderson if he wanted to change the article. He's making the claim on the Anna Anderson talk page, which has become such a jumble of comments that it's hard to pick out who said what and when. It probably should be archived.--Bookworm85715836718:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Kurth/Prince Christopher claim, et. al.
I've read his books and see the amount of research that went into them. The Riddle of Anna Anderson remains the most comprehensive biography of Anderson available. The book by Lovell is seriously flawed and contains a lot of half truths or outright lies, though it presents a clearer picture of Anderson as a seriously disturbed individual. Kurth freely acknowledged his biases and reported the opinions of both sides, while clearly coming down on the side of Anderson's claim. The DNA results and the discovery of the bones in Yekaterinburg this week makes it look like he was wrong, but I still have respect for the man's work. Nonetheless, he can't be allowed to make a claim that Prince Christopher's book was ghostwritten if that isn't the case or if it isn't published somewhere. You say you know Romanovs, which I don't doubt, but Kurth also knows some Romanovs. It may well depend on which Romanovs you both know, whether they have first-hand knowledge of this case or Prince Christopher's life, and what side they were on in this controversy. Unless it can be verified independently by the layman or another researcher, information doesn't belong in this article. --Bookworm85715836705:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Anderson
What you reverted doesn't appear to be vandalism or to violate the three-revert rule. The information he added needs to be cited, but otherwise it's unobjectionable. --Bookworm85715836716:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Anderson
Putting more nails in the Anna Anderson was Anastasia coffin? As long as they're sourced, I don't care, but we need to pay closer attention to citations in this article. At some point I'm going to go back in there and make them uniform, but I don't have the books you're using. Can you include author, correct title, publication date, ISBN number and page numbers? They're done correctly in the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia article, if you want to use that as your guide. That one went through the Featured Article process. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia
Look, I have listed where I'm getting the information about her ears. It is not from the television program. It's from Tsar by Christopher, Kurth, and Radzinsky, with page number. The relevant passage is, and I quote: "In 1994, at the very moment the DNA experts concluded that Mrs. Anderson was not the tsar's daughter, new forensic comparisons of her face and ears with pictures of hte young Anastasia, commissioned for a television documentary in England and following routine procedures of legal identification, reached exactly the opposite conclusion. The experiment was later successfully repeated by specialists in the United States, and their conclusions, too, were delivered with "certainty" -- Anna Anderson WAS Anastasia." I know you don't agree with the authors, but it is referenced and it will stay in the article as is. The summary I have used is an accurate representation of what Kurth, Christopher and Radzinsky have written. The article also includes information about the DNA results and about the recent discovery of remains that are probably Anastasia and Alexei. Please leave the passage alone. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anastasia
The information I added is sourced; I told you where it came from. Do not remove it. Yes, the article is about Anastasia, but the survival stories and the legend surrounding her are what must people know about and think of in reference to her. That -- and a reference to Anna Anderson -- belongs in the article, which is why I included it. It's not an article about Anderson; it's an article about Anastasia the girl and the legend that grew up around her after her death and the various survival stories and what fueled them. By all means, put the same thing in the Anna Anderson article. Anna Anderson is part of the legend. I wrote the Anastasia article. It is a Featured Article. It was vetted by various editors before it was approved as an FA. It has multiple references and line by line citations. There are also plenty of references to the DNA testing and to the remains found at Ekaterinburg in the early 1990s and this past August. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anastasia
The survival stories and legend about Anastasia have to be part of the article. They're why people are so darn interested in her. It's part of the history. Leaving them out would be inappropriate. Your comments about Kurth's credibility are uncited, by the way, and I have removed them. If you have a book indicating he was associated with the Nova program, I have no problem with you adding that. I have also fixed your reference. Vorres is already listed as a reference, so it should be Vorres (1965), p. whatever. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anastasia
Any article about Grand Duchess Anastasia is going to include the information on the survival stories. The article includes a biography of Anastasia and her manner of death and another section on the legend that grew up around her and the various cultural references to her, most of which are based on the Anna Anderson story. The information about Russian history is there in that article along with the reasons she's a saint and the legends surrounding her. There are a variety of reasons people will be interested in this subject and read about Anastasia.--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anastasia
In writing this article, I attempted to include all the available information and enable people to make up their own minds about the situation. Undoubtedly most of them conclude that Anastasia was killed with her family and Anderson was an impostor. I don't know that for a fact, though it's likely. Most of the available evidence supports that conclusion. But there are also supporters of Anderson who had some good reasons for their belief. Since Anderson's story was what most of the legends and stories have been based on, they belong in the article. Anastasia is as much legend as she is grand duchess now. As the editor of this article, I'm not allowed to draw my own conclusions. I can cite other sources who drew conclusions, which is what I did, attempting to provide a balance of opinions. I have again removed your comments about Kurth. You CANNOT say his opinion is suspect because he's a supporter if that's just your opinion. I don't know if he's associated with the TV program. Find a source saying that and you can add it, as long as you cite it. The source I am using is the book Tsar, which I quoted for you. I also attempted to improve the flow of your citation from the fellow talking about Svoboda. I left the citation alone for now until I can dig out the book and find the page number in the edition cited here, but the way you did it doesn't match the other citations in that article. I'd like to keep all the references matching. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. I'd say you've reverted my changes numerous times there, so who is guilty of the three-revert violation? There are problems with the flow in the paragraph about the Svoboda fellow. More importantly, I will NOT allow you to leave in the comment about Kurth's motivations, which appears to be solely your opinion. It doesn't reflect the citation I included following the paragraph, which you know darned well since I have quoted it for you. The way I have phrased it does reflect the substance of the citation. Find a book saying Kurth was associated with the documentary and someone else finds his citation of those test results suspect and I will have no problem with you adding it with the appropriate citation. As you have it now, it's incorrect. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to avoid escalating this argument further and really don't want to make an incident report on the incident board, but I feel strongly that you can't leave that statement about Kurth in there without a citation. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules about No Original Research and uncited sources. Can you find a reference saying Kurth was involved in the documentary and an author saying the test results were suspect? If you can't, please remove it. I will do so within a certain period of time if you can't supply the citation. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anastasia article
The paragraph I included is properly referenced with the information from the book. Wikipedia does not require that information be proven true or false, only that it be referenced properly with a verifiable source. "Tsar" by Kurth, Radzinsky and Christopher qualifies as a published, verifiable source. If you like, I will add it to the Anna Anderson article as well, with the same reference. The phrasing I used that you reverted was better than yours because it reported accurately what was in the book: tests were done, the ears were a match to Anastasia's, Kurth and supporters were left with questions, but acknowledge that the DNA testing proves she couldn't be Anastasia. Again, if you can't provide a citation for your assertion that Peter Kurth was involved with the documentary and from someone other than you asserting that his opinion is suspect, then please remove that allegation or I will. Your decision to post a "three-revert warning" violation on my page when it looks like you've been guilty of the same thing looks like escalating it into a conflict. I explained what I was doing and why. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you may, for a moment, heed to somebody who has been a Wikipedian for three years, I may say that edit warring is a waste of time on your side and everybody else involved. Please comment on the talk page rather than reverting without an edit summary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anastasia
I do not want to escalate this again, but your additions continue to be misleading and incorrect. The citation I have used is proper. Your additions mislead people into thinking that the citation says Kurth was involved with the documentary and his opinions are suspect. You cannot claim Kurth is associated with the documentary or that his opinion is questionable without citing it, which you have not. Take a look at the paragraph with Hildebrand's comment. The way you have it phrased is awkward. All I'm doing there is attempting to improve the flow. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are the credits listed for this particular episode, which I'm pretty sure is the one being referred to in the book. It's been 10 years or more since I've seen the episode. At one time I had it on tape, but it got thrown out when I moved. It's possible Kurth was interviewed, but I don't see him listed as a writer or an executive producer in the info I found on-line. I couldn't find any reference to him being associated with that program as director or writer or producer. If you HAVE something saying that, fine. I don't have a problem with you adding something saying he was interviewed for the program, if that's the case. I said so before. You didn't add the citation, so I altered it myself and attempted to add the program info that I did find. I'm not changing the wording of that graph. The book says what it says and that's what I based the information in the paragraph on. I added the program as well because you kept going on about it, but the book alone ought to have been sufficient as a citation. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anastasia
I really don't see how it's dishonest to provide a citation indicating EXACTLY where the information in an article is coming from, which is what I did. My source is the book "Tsar," which is sufficient. I provided a summary of what that paragraph in the book said and I followed it up with information about the American documentary that Kurth cited in his book. Your "corrections" made allegations about Kurth's relation to the forensic testing that were not supported by the citation I had added. That misleads people into thinking that Kurth's book says he's associated with the documentary and his opinion is suspect. If you know that to be the case, go ahead and add another citation from someone saying the tests were suspect because he was involved with them. This argument is becoming tiresome. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anastasia
Will you leave it alone, please? The citation you keep removing is NECESSARY to let people know where the information in that graph is coming from. It's from the book. The documentary citation is intended as a supporting, complementary citation. When you remove it, people are mislead into thinking it's all from the documentary. As for the "non-DNA" phrase you keep adding, it simply is not necessary. When people are comparing old photographs, it's pretty darned obvious that they are not in a laboratory comparing DNA. The previous sentence and the one after it does talk about the DNA results. I'm not going to budge on this. --Bookworm85715836717:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The tests that were referred to in that book were a comparison of photos, were conducted in 1994 or 1995 and did not use DNA. "Non-DNA" isn't necessary to illustrate what they did. What I'm insisting on is that the citations reflect where the information actually came from. The book is where I got the information in that particular paragraph. Removing that citation would make the article dishonest and inaccurate. Thank you for leaving it alone. --Bookworm85715836717:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas II
I am only removing irrelevant galleries of Lenin,Alexander II, etc added. They only add to size of the page and dont confer to the rules of Wikipedia. I've mentioned my reasons over there. In order to illustrate Nicholas II's reign you need not have images of everyone from the palace guard at Petrograd to the Tsarina. Thanks. ---
01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you examine my reasons and participate in the discussions at Talk:Nicholas II of Russia#Nicholas II than replying on my talk page. --
Hi. Um, in your recent edit, there were what appears to be purposely-introduced spelling and gramatical errors, for example you changed "people" to "peoplem", "somehow" to "somewhow", etc. The rest looks to be fine, but why did you introduce these spelling errors, or are they considered proper spelling in some parts of the world? I see people have discussed your edits to this article before, but since your edit looks mainly legit, I won't revert it, but why were those spelling errors introduced? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU)00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this now-expired block was done to prevent further damage to WP, not to punish you. Please use the talk pages more, and avoid edit-warring and sock-puppetry. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the text of Ludwig II into prose instead of a list. However, when you did that you threw away three references with no stated reason for doing so whatsoever. I am thinking that you just did not read carefully enough to see that different films, comic books, documentaries etc. were being discussed. Thus I reverted the section to the list form as it appeared before you changed it. The reason for this is that I simply do not have the time tonight to carefully stitch the things you excised back into your prose, and because I feel, quite honestly, that it is your job to incorporate the material as you found it and not my and other people's job to once again introduce things that you threw away for no reason. Thus, if you care to make it pretty again you can, with an eye toward retaining pertainent information that I and other people have contributed. I just think it is fair that I inform you. Thanks! Saudade722:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna
Give it a rest, Finnegan. In the twentieth century, the only member of the Imperial Family most common people could name was Anastasia, primarily because of the survival stories that grew up around Anna Anderson and the other claimants. That line stays in. In her lifetime, Olga and Tatiana might have been better known, but Tatiana was the one who did more public appearances and had "the common touch." As far as whether Anastasia survived or did not survive, we don't know. When they've positively identified the bodies found last August as Anastasia and Alexei through DNA testing, we can add that she was "falsely" rumored to have survived. Not until then. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finnegan, what I did was track down an online article reporting the same results, rephrased it, and cited it using the same format that I did with the article reporting the initial discovery. Your editorializing about what the discovery might mean regarding Anna Anderson was not cited. The articles all now correctly report that the initial reports indicate that there's a high probability the remains are those of Alexei and one of the daughters, but testing is still being conducted and they aren't certain when a final report will be released. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Marilyn Rowe, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.womenaustralia.info/biogs/IMP0257b.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for answering so late. You have left a message on my talk page. I don't know why you selected me for this message because I only removed a POV entry. --Saluk (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
princess Diana
Please don't revert a mass of changes without discussion. If you have problems discuss them on the talk page. Thanks/--Docg03:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brighton Grammar School
Ive reverted your edit. Adding Pro-brighton material on staff of the school is unencylopedic. If you have any further queries, please direct them to the articles talk page. Thanks. TwentyYears14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I am here to ensure that articles remain neutral, and do not contain un-nescessary information. I reverted your edits, mainly for the issue with this information which has been added: Deputy Head (Curriculum), Andrew Baylis has assisted Urwin in updating curriculum and ensuring adequate professional development opportunities for staff. Brendan Matthews has been appointed Director of Activities and Deputy Head of the Senior School to take control of the school's extensive co-curricular offerings. Naming staff who are responsible for updating the curriculum isnt very encyclopedic. But the updating of the curriculum is, and I think readers of the article would like to know more about what the updated curriculum will now look like, and what it looked like before (eg. is it going from the VCE to the International Baccalaureate program). Other than that, the edit seems fine, except Im concerned that the red-links to people that the edit added will never become blue because the people arent notable. What are your thoughts on the curriculum information? TwentyYears14:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous user
If the guy vandalizes the page again, I think he ought to be reported. He technically only received two warnings, though, since you and I both warned him for the same offense. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Four times you have reverted the edits of three other editors. Please do not revert other editors until you have participated in the discussion on the talk page. It is POV to say that this lady was actually who she claimed to be; it is also POV to say that she was not who she claimed to be. It is NPOV to say that she claimed something and that certain people rejected her claims. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote today, "The objections have been explained. You obviously have an agenda. It's totally pointless discussing the matter with you as you have no desire to face reality about an obvious fraud." You have never contributed even one single time to the discussion on the page Talk:Hilda_Toledano. You ignore the consensus of other editors and pretend that I have an agenda and am supporting a fraud - in spite of the fact that I have repeatedly said that I personally do not support the claims of this woman. When wiki-editors have differences, we discuss them. You have repeatedly refused to do so. Noel S McFerran (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3RR on Diana, Princess of Wales
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Also, please note that even if valid information has been removed, that is not a reason to revert through 157 revisions to get back to your preferred version. Put the sourced info back in, but don't undo the other work that has been done since. --Onorem♠Dil17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Puppeteer
Please do not remove the names of prominent puppeteers from the Puppeteer wikipedia page without discussion. Do you actually know of the work done by these puppeteers? If not please desist.
If they're actually prominent puppeteers, then why don't they have articles? Do you actually have evidence any of the red links have any reason to be on the list? If not please desist.
Perhaps you might like to explain in detail what remains in the wikipedia Puppeteer article that warrants a 'laundry list'. There is little evidence of you making any constructive improvement to the article through provision of verifiable information on the topic.
Perhaps you might like to a) read the tag; and b) read my edit summary to see why it "warrants" the tag. Perhaps you might like to explain in detail why turning an introductory article into an artist's directory is in the least helpful. Perhaps you should consider the meaning of terms you use, such as "verifiable" when cranking out cookie-cutter bios lifted from a single book as an attempt to get around the basic guidelines regarding lists.
And these are being cranked out based on a single book, I might add, which as a reliable and verifiable source seems somewhat lacking, given that I've been unable, so far, to find it being held by anyone outside the National Library of Australia. I can't even find it for sale at Fishpond.com.au, which calls itself "Australia's Biggest Online Bookstore. In fact, searching for the publisher's name on Google only gets me, other than the NAS, a) Wikipedia articles where b) the very book in question is being used as a reference c) by you.
All this leads me to the hypothesis that a) you are the author, David Logan; b) the book is as near to being self-published as you can get; c) you have either serious conflicts of interest and/or are using Wikipedia to promulgate original research. And I can throw in that, based on your edits, you're the return of Aussiebrisguy (talk·contribs).
Boy O Boy what a reaction! One wonders what you know about puppetry? I really am not interested in engaging in your time wasting games. Like many others connected with this topic I am interested in providing information for fellow wikipedians. I wonder whether you are? Please desist
Desist? Your authority for that is what, exactly?
My reaction is simple: I have a low threshold for nonsense, and really dislike having my intelligence insulted. Sucks to be you, then. And yes, you're nothing new: Wikipedia attracts self-promoters like honey attracts flies, and they're very easy to spot. Arrogant dismissals and airy handwaving as an avoidance technique really doesn't work -- rather, they tend to set off the BS detectors -- while actually addressing the issues does. What you are "really interested in" is immaterial; backing up your claims if you want them to remain, is.
So, let's start with the basics: why is David Logan's book a reliable source, given that the best that can be said about it, so far, is that has some vague form of corporeal existence? It appears that no one in the world -- and I mean that literally, so far -- is using it as a reference. Is it your book? --Calton | Talk20:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did when removing information from the wikipedia page Puppeteer, you will place yourself in a position where you may be blocked from editing wikipedia.
Pull the other one, Buckwheat. You may wish to review the actual meaning of "vandalize" before using it so casually. And given the evidence of the ample warnings issued to you regarding your behavior and edit-warring, you're in no position -- assigned, practical, legal, ethical, factual, or even moral -- to be issuing any warnings.
No article, no listing: Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages and red-links/no-links/external link-only listings get removed, as per standard practice. Don't like it? Take it higher up instead of issuing bogus and empty threats and see how far it gets you. Hint: not very far.
Reality check: I have 30 times the edits you do and have been editing 6 times long: I know what I'm talking about. Remember that before blustering and trying to template the regulars again.
Abuse of tags
Bad-faith placing of warnings or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria (as you did here) is vandalism. Also I will ask that you do not ask others to engage in edit warring on your behalf as you did here.--Hu12 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and let me add to this - if you keep templating people who are working in a constructive manner, then it is likely you will be blocked. I've been editing wikipedia since the start, so don't think your bullyboy misuse of tags is going to scare me off (or Calton for that matter). --87.114.130.199 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
April 2008
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Charles, Prince of Wales. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Gwernol10:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WPC
Strictly non-wiki query this. The following appeared today in the Puppeteers UK monthly bulletin:
"UNIMA News from Perth Austraila
Ray sent this link to me about the WPC in Perth....If there is anyone who can send in a first hand report from Perth for a future News/Features item, I would be very grateful and so would others no doubt....Look out for our daily news updates and short film reports from UNIMA 2008 World Puppetry Congress and Festival daily from Perth, Australia here."
Finneganw, am I imagining it or might you be involved? If so, anyway a report could be filed? Apologies in advance if I'm off-beam. Cheers! Bob (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have again removed the tag that you keep placing on that page, for the reasons I have discussed on the talk page. I am well aware of your opinions regarding Peter Kurth's books but, nonetheless, his books are valid, published sources, entirely acceptable for use as a source for a Wikipedia article. The sources for the article also include Robert K. Massie, Greg King and Penny Wilson, and Pierre Gilliard himself. If you wish to add more information to the article, I think it could only add to it. As I said, I can't find more biographical information about Gilliard's life following the war or before the war in my own books. But as the article currently stands, it is not biased. I won't agree to that tag. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've nominated the above for deletion following your suggestion way back in May, I think. Following protocol this is by way of alerting you in case you have any objections. Meanwhile, best wishes. Bob (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only new piece of information in that article you referenced is that the University of Massachusetts medical school conducted some of the testing. The rest was nearly identical to the other article that already stated that the last two bodies had been identified. The other graphs you have added were redundant. I trimmed some of your additions, used the same format for your citation addition as for the other news articles cited. Unless you have found more information about the testing, I don't see the point in adding any more about it or continually reiterating that Anna Anderson was a fraud when the article already says that -- several times. Surely they will have a ceremony to bury the recently discovered remains with the others. We should keep watch for the announcement of that. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finnegan, your "verified quotes" are still referenced in that article with the reversions I have made, just not in their entirety. What I am doing is slowly rewriting and rearranging the article to improve flow and writing style and, yes, removing or paraphrasing some of the quotes. We do not need that many direct quotes in the article, particularly so many that beat a dead horse with the point that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia. It says that. Multiple times. It is currently an absolute mess. I will be working on the rest of it this week. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Anderson
No, Finnegan, what I am doing is EDITING it. The article says, and at great length, that she was not Anastasia and was probably Franziska Schanzkowska. The current arrangement is poorly written and utilizes too many direct, lengthy quotes. It is better to paraphrase what those people said. If people want to look up the original sources and read the original quotes, all the better. If this article is ever going to be ready for a Good Article rating, it's going to need considerable work. I intend to continue editing it when I have the time to do so. If you would like to revise your own work, I'd start by paraphrasing the quotes and getting rid of many of the ones that are direct verbatim. I'd also add that the article could use far more balance and for the citations to be regularized so they are all the same. When I was going through it originally I found a few "ibids" in the quotes you'd added and it really wasn't clear which article or book you were citing. There are multiple articles and books cited, so ibid. isn't clear. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained what I'm doing and why I'm making the edits to the Anna Anderson article above, on your page, more than once. I paraphrased some of your citations; I did not remove "verified information." We don't need to quote massive sections of the books in that article. I've also requested that it be peer reviewed to get an outside opinion about how to turn it into a Good Article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear finneganw, please keep a watch on the Anderson article the next few days as I will be on a trip to the Carolina hills with my aunts and will have no computer access. Chat has been deleting my sourced material for the sole reason that he doesn't like it. I found evidence that Rathlef was a Steiner follower and only backed AA because of odd beliefs of that group and he deleted it, I put it back and he deleted it again, though it was sourced from two different books. All he ever does is go through the article adding garbage and 'sourcing' it with just "Kurth" or "Rathlef." He has also removed some things I had sourced from other books and replaced it with "Kurth." This only makes me more certain he is indeed Kurth. He believes totally that everything Rathlef said was right and everything everyone else said that disagrees is a 'lie'. He actually told me my sources from the 2 books didn't count unless I had a 'backstory'- well where is his 'backstory'- or even secondary validation- for anything Rathlef ever wrote? It certainly is strange that Rathelf and Botkin are the ones who turned out to be wrong, and everything they said the opposite of turned out to be right, so that is proof they were the ones who were wrong. Of course Kurth values them deeply since his book is based on their books, but their books were only written to advance AA's cause at the time and are no longer valid. He said Rathlef IS the source and he is so deluded into believing everything from all the others- and I have used many valid sources- are wrong and don't count. This is why he seriously shouldn't be messing with the article. He has also vandalized my quotes and sources and snuck in garbage in the middle of my sourced quotes. I am sorry to bother you with this but I know I can trust you to keep after him while I'm gone. Thank you for all the good you have done on this cause.Aggiebean (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe I have discovered why he so desperately wants to hide all evidence of Rathelf's involvement in the religious cult as well as other negative information about her- much of his case is built on Rathelf's work (as he said himself, he is her successor, in possession of her original notes, and he stands on her shoulders)and therefore if she is discredited it's a huge blow to AA's credibility (if the DNA and all the other evidence weren't enough!)I have found yet more evidence in Klier and Mingay's book I will be adding, but I expect he'll delete it againAggiebean (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen what "Rev Antonio" is doing now? He's insane, and he has to be Kurth! All he does it take up for Kurth and lash out like a bratty kid. He can't stand it that he can't get into the article. He's insulting trusilver on the talk page again and on trusilver's talk page. Trusilver has deleted some but he did it again. We are dealing with a deranged, obsessed maniac.Aggiebean (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks so much for trying to help with a certain person. I can't believe they honored his wish to get his records and IPs deleted, I've never seen anyone else get that favor, perhaps he's someone 'special?' He is back and harassing Lisa again. He will probably be back on AA after the lock is lifted. Did you see what I did to the Sophie B. page? I found evidence that the 'betrayal' allegations are false and proved it! It was good to clear her name. It was only ruined by AA and those who wanted to make her 'memory' come true. Let this poor woman rest in peace with honor.Aggiebean (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping watch on the AA article. Now that it's open he'll be ruining it every day. It is obvious he is the same person, Chat, Rev, and of course Kurth. Yes Kurth uses the name Fraser and aslo AVSpeicter on other sites. Since Trusilver is an airline pilot I would like to show him the story of how Kurth was thrown off the plane and arrested for acting up in flight. That proves his airline behavior is just the same as his online behavior and it is yet more proof they are the same pathetic person. Who put up the new headers on the AA page? Is that because of his shabby sourcing? I guess we can keep reverting his changes, but it's going to be a constant battle. Aggiebean (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw what you're doing to the page, good work! I hope he doesn't notice it and start another edit war. Keep up the good work and let me know what I can do to help on my talk page. Thanks!Aggiebean (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for exposing his socks, or just a few of the many! He will most likely give himself away even more as his temper explodes and he becomes more and more irrational. Keep up the good work.Aggiebean (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope he is gone, he is a pathetic, irrational child, and there is no such thing as reasoning with him or compromising. He is a detriment to the article and even the talk page, with his terrorism and unrealistic viewpoint which cannot be dragged into the realm of reality. The best thing for the whole site is to have him gone.Aggiebean (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem, of all things bookworm has returned adding unsubstantiated hearsay about the 'differences' between AA and FS and how she just 'couldn't' have been a Polish peasant. I tried to change it but likely they will do it again too so look out.Aggiebean (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on ChatNoir24, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Highest Heights (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's back, and trying to add that disproven, unsubstantiated junk about the nurse again, which is not true. This was all Harriet Rathlef's work trying to claim AA said something before she was told she was Tatiana by Clara P. but it makes no sense and cannot be proven, and should not be stated as fact.Aggiebean (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most Reverend Antonio Hernandez here
finneganw, you will cease accusing me of being Peter Kurth, ChatNoir and the Easter Bunny. I am who I am and none other. You children on the other hand are being very naughty. I'm preparing to deal with you via Wikipedia, you can understand that, can't you? I have no agendas, did no vandalizing and I certainly have never done the disgusting things you have been doing during my banishment. As I said to Trusilver, you'd better be good at defending yourselves, better than you are at getting people banned. Archbishop Antonio Hernandez and none other. 75.21.153.2 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you said you were a Buddhist monk, get your alias characters straight. What kind of Holy man do you expect us to believe you are the way you act here, and also attacking Lisa on the Noahidism page? Sorry but it's painfully obvious that there is one person attacking those who are writing this article and the person is of one viewpoint and one agenda, regardless of name or IP. The history of the talk pages and their archives proves every time one of your names is stopped you show up immediately as one of the other ones saying the same things and acting the same way. Please, do not humiliate yourself any further by playing these games nobody believes.Aggiebean (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Finneganw for his excellent work in protecting the Anna Anderson article from the outrageous vandalism of an obsessed poster. You deserve to be honored greatly. Thank you.
Chat is back and putting in his discredited junk again
Well I thought he was deleted but he's back, and he's rampantly readding all his garbage. I can't keep up fast enough, please help.Aggiebean (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has put that nurse garbage back in 3 times today. I keep taking it out and he puts it back. That qualifies as edit warring. Aggiebean (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's still adding that nurse story again, and even worse he's taken to quoting the completely fictional "I, Anastasia" as reference. He must be stopped! Where is Trusilver?Aggiebean (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They locked the article up, but they didn't block Chat- still I haven't seen him today so maybe they did and didn't post about it. Ferrymans is unfortuantely back. I hope we can explain to the mod why just talking it out on the talk page will never solve our problem with Chat/et all.Aggiebean (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the AA page:I added something else before I saw your message on my page, please read it and let me kmow if it distorts anything and I'll delete it. I think it helps but I'll go by your word.Aggiebean (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at what Chat just put. I haven't answered because you said not to, but somebody really needs to point out to the mods that him saying we are scared of the info he posts because it proves AA was AN and that we cannot discredit Kurth's "eminent book" are perfect examples of why he is delusional and should not be allowed to edit the article.Aggiebean (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please hurry back. The AA supporters are trying to convince the mod and no one is there to help out against them. I haven't posted because you said not to but it's urgent now.Aggiebean (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, he just went too far and said some ridiculous things. I am not going to post again, I will leave that to you. But in the time you were gone, the AA supporters took it over and someone had to speak up.Aggiebean (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you have written to Alexius is perfect and I will not add anything. Chat is making an utter fool of himself on the AA page and no one needs me to point that out anymore. This is exactly what happened on the JREF (James Randi skeptic forum), at first people thought I was being hard on him and made excuses for him, then he totally gave himself away as the outrageous, mentally ill and delusional idiot that he is and the other posters told me they could see what he was doing and to just stop. In addition to what happened on AP, on the Royal forums, he got several threads locked up for his repetitious garbage and then the entire matter was closed upon the announcement of the DNA results in March. Helen told me that the library she works at removed Kurth's book from the nonfiction shelf when the results proved no one could have survived. They have nothing, not even the intestine switch theory will work now that they have all the bones. The only problem is getting those who don't know the history of the case to understand, but you are doing a good job of that. I will not add anything now unless you want me to.Aggiebean (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mods need to understand this is no usual case of someone who is going to behave after a suspension. He is not going to change and needs to be banned. I am also having second thoughts about giving him his own playground, he would never accept it being called a 'myth' section and he'd never stay away from the main article. I wanted to post this but you said not to so I'm just telling you.Aggiebean (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bookworm is doing a good job of convincing him she may not have been FS, but she was, and there really isn't any 'controversy' over that save a few AA supporters, including bookworm. Bookworm is the most dangerous AA supporter because he/she comes across as more rational and acceptable than the others, but the position is still the same as that of the loonies.Aggiebean (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put a couple things in trying to help out because bookworm was really pushing the AA can't be FS thing and the mods were buying it, but I think what I put is intelligent and useful.Aggiebean (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I'm glad you put it to her/him that way. I see there has been no response. I added a few things it was important for the mods to know. They only want to refuse her a real identity so they can leave the door open for her to still somehow be AN. This has to stop.Aggiebean (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your message on my talk page
I've said my piece on administrator AlexHoratius's page and on the Anna Anderson talk page and my opinion hasn't changed. I don't feel like engaging you elsewhere or to responding to the good Reverend either. I'm not in the mood for sniping, veiled personal attacks or continued drama this early in the morning. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delusional fanatics
Did you see what Chat put on Alexius's page? Just an example of just how far into his own realm of fantasy he has sank. He's not just playing or being mean, he honestly believes he's right. That is utter insanity worthy of a padded cell. The man's mind is gone. I hope his glaring lunacy speaks for itself and the mods will understand what we are dealing with. It is truly hopeless to reason with the insane.Aggiebean (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you have seen, Chat has started in on the admin page with his rants of discredited details and will turn it into another endless string of such tirades like he did on the talk page and message boards if not stopped soon. You can see from the Royal Forums Questions of Identity section he got nearly every thread closed the same way, repetition, refusing to listen, believe or understand why his old info is now wrong and doing and saying the same things over and over. Also, at the same time, (suspiciously) Rev was over on the AA talk page threatening us all again. I do hope something is done very soon.14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
On reworking: I think there's going to be a big problem with agreeing with what to put in the article. Though Bookworm is far more sensible and fair than Chat and/or Rev, I don't think we are going to be able to agree on content. If she insists on adding quotes and details from supporters trying to make it look like she may have been, we are going to have to add the other details, leading to the same old quote matching and long length we are trying to avoid. This is why you are right that the less content the better. Yes, I do believe the AA supporters are still trying to present a strong case for her, or at least try to justify the belief they or others had for her. The idea that we need to tell both sides and 'let the readers make up their minds' is another ploy to make a case for AA. There is no more mystery and we shouldn't have to give any credence to a proven wrong POV. No one would 'let the reader make up their mind' who won WWII, or any other historical fact. AA not being AN is a historical fact. Encyclopedia articles are for facts, not guessing games or allusions to myths.Aggiebean (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mod Vyvyan Basterd has already stated on the AA page that Chat is the problem and needs time out. I don't now why Dr.Kieran hasn't followed through with this. His nurse story is truly rubbish and his constant insistence is annoying and is only hindering the progress. It is plain as day he believes she is AN and wants that view in the article. That alone should get him blocked. As for Bookworm, I have no confidence we will ever come to a consensus as long as she continues to insist she may not have been FS, and now can't even be an imposter? For someone that comes off as so smart, she sure clings to a very stupid POV. What a shame. I am sick of it all too, this along with the personal problems I am facing today is all dragging me down terribly. If I were in a better state of mind I'd write a sample article, but it's not working for me now. Can you make one? Just put what it should say and see if anyone objects- and Chat should not even count. I totally support you in writing her life as FS, but of course we have bookworm to deal with. Maybe the mod will help us out if he sees how strong our case is.Aggiebean (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern. I added something on the Dr's page where you reported him. He's been warned several times and the other mod has recommended his removal. I don't know why this hasn't happened yet. He is the problem. (though bookworm will be another) Thanks for all you're doing, I'll check in again soon.Aggiebean (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chat is back and causing yet more problems. Now he wants to add the 'differences' between AA and FS and bookworm is going along with it. Help.Aggiebean (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now Rev is claiming we can't say Kurth his discredited unless we find a source that says so. He is discredited by the fact his book is now reduced to fiction. I do not trust Rev, he changes sides and changes back, I don't know what he plans to achieve, and cannot be sure who he is, is he Chat trying to fool us? I don't know if Chat is that smart, but then he came back with this Kurth defense so I don't know. He should have been blocked back when he was ranting. And Chat of course should be stopped from having anything to do with the article or talk page. He can keep his garbage on his own talk page. It's late here, maybe something will happen on your shift.Aggiebean (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Aggiebean, this whole thing is not a war or a strategy session. It's a DISCUSSION. Nothing is going in that article without a consensus being reached on the talk page. Running back and forth to Finnegan's page to complain about one or the other of the editors isn't going to do much good. It's better to talk it out on the talk page. So long as ChatNoir doesn't actually edit the article, let him talk. Don't argue with him if you want the conversation to wind down. At the moment I think it's pretty clear that people aren't going to agree to put in what he wants. I'm not inclined to allow it because I think it will make the article too long and go into too much detail. I think the issues he's raising could be covered with a one sentence mention that a few of Anderson's supporters still refuse to accept the identity as Franziska Schanzkowska though it is regarded as fact by historians and scientists, etc. I don't think ChatNoir can name a source that's going to be acceptable to a majority, but I gave him a chance to see if he could in the interest of civilized debate. As for the Reverend, I suspect English is not his first language and that might have something to do with the way he's coming across. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that Chat and Rev are not blocked. No progress can ever be made as long as their irrational and/or zealous rants continue. If no one is going to listen to them, why are they even allowed to be there? The page is a worse war zone than ever.
And the reason I 'run to Finneganw's page' is because we are in very different time zones and I say what is going on at the time he is gone, and he leaves me messages too. It's not nice to spy on us and make rude assumptions.Aggiebean (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IP/Rev
I am tired of his abusive accusations and rants. He has turned us both into the new mod for being 'Satanic' and he says he's watching our talk pages and has told others to do the same. Is there another way I can talk to you without it being laid out for the world to see? Aggiebean (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. He's back with yet another IP, leaving very insane and abusive messages at my talk page and on the AA page. I hope there is some way to stop him forever.Aggiebean (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dream on, oh foolish child. By the way, I can't see anyplace you were called "satanic", but perhaps where there's smoke, there's a fire....
I am very frustrated with the good Dr. I know he means well, but he is going by the standards of wikipedia in general and this is a very different case, both because she didn't have her own life but stole another's idenitity, and because the people we're working with are never going to agree to anything. This is why the less info, the better. I really hoped he'd see the sordid history of this article and know that we who have experienced it all are right. I would not mind writing a long article that is very much like my website, but we can't do that here because they will stick in their pro AA junk and we'll have edit wars. We understand better than anyone why we can't do this. I am not looking forward to the work ahead, because I am afraid we will resolve nothing. Chat is back with all his rhetoric, and Bookworm will never agree to her being FS. Nothing is going to be resolved and I feel the headache just beginning.Aggiebean (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am about to throw in the towel. The newcomers do not understand that what they ask is impossible, and what we have been trying to do for ages that has not and will not work under the circumstances. They should listen to us because we have lived through it all and know. You can't just glance at it from the outside and get the answers. The things they propose are just what caused the trouble in the first place. I wonder what bookworm will come up with? I'm not very hopeful.Aggiebean (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll try. I agree bookworm is very pro Kurth and will not leave out his influence or ever accept AA is FS. Bookworm has written numerous articles on the IF and their associates, sadly tainted horribly by the POV of Kurth and King and Wilson, all very pro AA and mostly wrong. I am glad I was able to save the Sophie B article, I hope I can find something to help poor Gilliard. I swear it looks like bookworm is inventing some articles just to paint them as a villain in the AA saga, and that is the wrong reason to write someone's life story. I doubt there will ever be compromise on the article, I can only hope the mods will see it the right way and help.Aggiebean (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't, not at all, thanks. It was Vyvyan's post and Chat's I was answering. I am very concerned for the future of the article. It seems we are now working with people who either don't understand the past history and don't understand why their suggestions won't work, or that might want to give consessions to the AA supporters just to make peace. This is wrong, and I can't believe wiki would even consider it. We have all the facts on our side, and should not at all have to coddle a few AA supporters and appease Kurth at the expense of telling the straight out truth in the article. The main issue should be that the article state fact and leave no room for fantasy or reading between the lines or any 'maybe.' The mystery is over and any factual article needs to state that. We have to keep standing up for it.Aggiebean (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are exactly right, that is the plan of the AA supporters, they want to play 'I am so calm' and try to anger me so I'll blow up and they can go 'look at her.' But if anyone would just look at the history, Chat's ignorance, insanity and rants speak for themselves. He should have been banned before the rebuilding ever began. I can't beieve Dr. is actually picking on us (did you see what he posted about our posts?!) and considering Chat's rebuttals in refusing content and having him as one of those who must give consensus. Bookworm, while I disagree with her too, is the only AA supporter rational enough to be taken seriously in this thing. I am sorry we don't have a mod who knows and understands the history of what we've all been through and what has happened to the article. For goodness sake, Chat's vandalism and sneak POV attacks in the middle of our sentences and quotes should be grounds to deny him any involvement. I remain frustrated and hopeless.Aggiebean (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's so far gone now he's denying things in his own book, and claiming she didn't have any mental health issues, which obviously she did. He has the insane conspiracy theory that Jennings paid people off to lock her up. He's just as delusional as AA herself and getting worse all the time.Aggiebean (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite sickened and frustrated that Dr. takes Chat seriously and asks for his opinion on everything. He is unstable, delusional, always spouts misleading for false info, and his track record on the talk pages and editing history are really worse than IP75's. He should have been banned before we even began. Maybe they know he's Kurth and that's why they value his imput? His behavior has been just as bad as IPs and if he is blocked Chat should be as well. I guess bookworm has decided not to be a part of this, but as you say, their 'side' should not be appeased since they are proven to be wrong.Aggiebean (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to have any more to do with the article if they are going to give equal value to the AA side and go back to a long article allowing Chat imput. That was a long miserable headache that was finally locked and it will happen again. I am too stressed in real life to go through that again. I can't understand why no one believes us, we were the ones who were there and suffered with it long before it was taken to the mod page. The situation is hopeless because of the AA supporters. Since their side is completely disproven, I don't know why their POV has to be represented or appeased.Aggiebean (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am now convinced this JohnK was sent by Kurth/Chat to plead his case in a more civilized way than he ever could. Note that Chat has disappeared since this person appeared. The goal of Chat is to get a longer article so he can insert his pro AA stuff that we can't fight because we don't have sources directly stating the obvious, that she was coached and that her memories never happened. Just as Penny got Tsarfan and Simon to fight her battles because she couldn't do it without getting upset and looking like a crazy fool, that is what Johnk is doing for Chat/Kurth. I'm tired of it.Aggiebean (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, his true colors are starting to fly. He is defending having AA supporters in the article and wants what he calls the 'fascinating' and 'amazing' parts of her story that actually turned out to be a load of garbage and lies. The fact that Chat has stayed out of the discussion since John arrived proves they are on the same side. Please don't give up fighting the nonsense, I won't either.Aggiebean (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
signature, personal attack
Please sign all your posts to talk and project pages with four tildes ~~~~. You have been signing some of them with a link the mainspace link Finneganw, which is highly misleading. Thanks beforehand for heeding this. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the likes of 75IP around harassing us on our talk pages, who can blame the guy for not encouraging anyone to visit his talk page? Those who really know him and have something to say can find it anyway. Maybe he wants to keep out the rifraff (like 75IP)Aggiebean (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no lie, look at the talk pages of everyone who's gotten involved with the AA story and see all the pollution you have clogged their talk pages with. Your obsession is odd and disturbing. Please find another hobby.Aggiebean (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finneganw, I've already warned you about this. Not only should you follow the policy as DrKiernan says, but misleading signatures are even worse and aren't allowed. This is your last warning. Please sign your posts to talk and project pages with four tildes (~~~~) and if you use a custom signature, give it a link to either your user or user talk page. A bare four tilde signature does this, by the way.Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Finneganw. If you will promise not to edit Anna Anderson or the article's talk page for a period of time (e.g. six months) your formal ban from that article may still be avoided. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard. There is a clear consensus that your continued participation at Anna Anderson is unhelpful to this encyclopedia. You are therefore topic banned from both the Anna Anderson article and its talkpage. To be clear, this means that the person behind the Finneganw account may no longer edit either of those pages; you may not edit either page using alternative accounts or unlogged in.
I am the bearer of bad news, I realize. I would, however, encourage you to continue editing Wikipedia, and contributing to other articles, since you clearly have much skill and knowledge to offer on various topics. Observing the topic ban and contributing in a collegial fashion to WP on other articles will be the best way of proving to all your commitment to the project, and will offer the best chance of the topic ban being lifted in the future. --Slp1 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to NN Windsor, Viscount Severn, you will be blocked from editing. Alexfusco5 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Charles, Prince of Wales. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 10:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
