Talk:Linz sisters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He is the article that should be posted to this page once it is unprotected:

---

The "Linz Sisters" are three sisters (Viktoria, Katharina and Elisabeth) who were confined in isolation by their mother (a 53-year-old lawyer) for seven years in their home on the Pöstlingberg hill, in the northern part of Linz. They were rescued by police in 2005, but their story was not made public until 2007.

The girls’ ordeal started shortly after their parents’ divorce. Their mother appears to have suffered some sort of emotional breakdown following the end of her marriage. She won custody of the girls (then aged 7, 11 and 13) and withdrew them from school, claiming that she was going to home-school the children. Her husband (who is identified by the pseudonym “Andreas M”) is a local judge in Linz, Austria. His ex-wife did not allow him to see his daughters. When the father came to see his children, the mother would tell him that they not home or were sick. He filed nine separate claims with the court for access, but was stonewalled by his lawyer ex-wife.

The girls were locked in a room with no running water and no natural light, which was filled with human excrement and mice urine. The girls were rescued after a concerned neighbor made repeated calls to the police. When the girls were discovered, they were severely malnourished and suffered from an extreme sensitivity to light. Due to their isolation, they do not speak normally but instead have evolved their own unique language. Experts say that girls may never fully recover. The girl’s therapist, Waltraud Kubelka, described their social and physical development as “catastrophic”.

The mother is currently being held in a special remand prison branch for the mentally unstable. She is due to appear in court on charges of grievous bodily harm and torture.

What would amke it better is providing your sources and cutting plagiarised material. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What "plagiarized material"?... and yes, I did cite all more sources, but that version was lost due to your page protect. I am a stickler for citing sources myself, and I promise you that the finished article will include these sorts of bells and whistles. In any case, page delete/protects should never be used as the first option for dealing with content disputes. I'm not sure how you managed to become an admin without ever learning this basic principle. I've been looking over your talk pages, and it is apparent that you seem to enjoy confrontation, just for confrontation's sake. Your love of the delete button only serves to piss off contributors. You have to be aware that your hasty deletions only start unnecessary arguments, right? It is difficult to work with somebody who is enjoying their power a little too much. Questionable content should be discussed, not deleted outright (and certainly not protected before even discussing your concerns with the author). If you hadn't intervened in the is article, I would have still rewritten it as you see above -- that is why the guidelines suggest using a AfD in these sorts of matters. Your rash behavior has caused me to have to waste time arguing with you instead of working on the article. Here’s what you need to do:

• Unprotect the page
• Let me finish working on it.
• Come back tomorrow
• If there is still any concerns, post them here.

But we can not make any progress here unless you unprotect the page. -- Big Brother 1984 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If any copyvio is confirmed with a search there isn't a need to discuss it. Of course that doesn't mean things need to be deleted; but Wiki moves fast and people are doing their best to get the job done. I've made mistakes, and it happens. I see no immediate signs of bad faith by anyone, so don't be confrontational yourself. It should also be noted Big Brother was treated (warned) as if he was a new anon. I find that inappropriate and definitely not assuming good faith. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this editor was warned improperly. Wikipedia takes copyvio seriously. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course we take it seriously; that doesn't dictate posting generic warnings on established users talk pages. Hey, you're preaching to the choir here, I'm quite experienced and aggressive at warning anon vandals and troublemakers. Big Brother 1984 is neither. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not confirm a copyvio of this version (posted above) on a search on Google. So regardless of the discussion of what happened in the past, I hope you will let him work on the article now and unprotect the page.--DorisH 08:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)