User talk:DrKay

Chat is trying cleverly to get backing for what caused most of the trouble in the first place- the nurse story. He knew you were unaware of what happened in the past and is using this to his advantage. Check out the AA article history for evidence of the edit wars of June 1-5 and when Alexius Horatius stepped in and locked the page. He has been pushing this nonsense for years, and we have tried desperately to keep it out. The edit war over the nurse story, and the POV vandalism he was doing to the section on Olga's hospital visit caused the page to get shut down. Honestly he has been so much trouble I was surprised he was being taken seriously as an editor in the rewrite. The nurse story is the biggest bone of contention and Finneganw and I will never consent to it. Please don't let Chat pull this and trick you into putting it in for him. More (unfortunately) on the talk page. Please consider the points made by Finneganw and myself, thanks.Aggiebean (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The progress that has been made with the new article has been substantial. You know I am supportive of what we have all been trying to achieve here. It is however now starting to basically stop due to a persistent regular spreader of inaccurate disinformation. If the article is to have any respect it needs to be accurate. ChatNoir24 is doing his utmost to totally derail the process. He pushes the same limited totally discredited sources. A number of administrators have warned him about this behaviour and he believes he can do as he pleases pushing discredited rubbish. He has a very long history of massive unobjective POV disruption. I would hope you will put a stop to it very soon. Chat will waste a considerable amount of your time. That is one of his favourite ploys along with the other one who troll different pages. I can see problems ahead unless you also warn him as he is wasting your time as well as ours. Do have a look at the past history 1-5 June 2009. It is very clear the disruption caused. Also please consider how none of his nonsense impeded considerable progress during his recent absence. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Finneganw 18:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is all true. This is why we wanted to keep the article brief and avoid details. There are going to be major arguments on them all which is what ruined the article for the last 3 years. As long as Chat is allowed to participate, despite his past POV vandalism and three revert rules and his obvious belief in AA, there is going to be a lot of hassle. Please, we are going for a much shorter article, and we need to be very selective about what we add and whether or not it can be verified as fact. Please do not allow the fantasy nonsense invented by AA supporters to help her claim pollute a factual article. The nurse story is a perfect example and the first of more to come, beware. If there is no evidence it happened, it most likely didn't. We can never take one AA supporter's word for it alone. Aggiebean (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nurse 'story' is a load of utter unverifiable garbage. Anderson was never Anastasia and had no memories to tell anybody. It is complete and utter fiction. It would seem if this is to be included the whole article needs to be referred to a panel of experts. That should not be necessary if the article uses proven historical research methodology. That requires proof and there is no proof in any of Anderson's claims as none of what she claimed to be was true from the very start. No respected academic let alone research student in history would accept such ridiculous nonsense. Finneganw 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to put in a word of encouragement to say that I think you're doing a good job at as mediator of Anna Anderson in being fair to both sides without getting bogged down in arguing nonsense with either side, an ability which I lack. Keep up the good work. john k (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it might be necessary to call in some other mediators here. No consenus can be reached when basic fact is denied. Certainly JohnK has not been making any worthwhile contributions to sorting out a mess he and other AA supporters wish to foist on the page. Finneganw 06:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I write this very reluctantly indded as I also replied to your entry on the Anna Anderson discussion page. I believe you are running the risk of losing your objectivity and neutrality and are being swayed by known AA supporters, one of whom has been repeatedly warned by other administrators to desist from vandalising and promoting POV statements. Another has shown above an inability to be objective. I'm not sure what your game is. The one thing that is quite clear is that the vast majority of information tied to Anderson is completely false. One would hope you are becoming more aware of this. I would hope you will play a more constructive role rather than siding with others who do not wish to have any form of consensus. Perhaps it is worthwhile to reflect on why the article is being reshaped. It was due to an edit war caused by rabid Anderson supporters wishing to not present verifiable historical or scientific reality. I have always tried to treat you with respect. As an academic with a very long record of academic study, I find it a rather curious viewpoint that other academics never make errors of judgement. Some need to come down from ivory towers to see at times that their work is heading in the wrong direction. Fellow academics remind their peers of this honestly. I guess that is why peer review is required by respected learned journals the world over rather than academics merely submitting articles for publication. I am concerned about what is happening and I believe you should be too. Finneganw 11:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]