User talk:Finneganw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Aussiebrisguy.
Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy subsection may also be helpful.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

Contents

[edit] Anna Anderson

Yes, that's great....but why are your only edits telling me and Trusilver about this "vandalism"? And even copying and pasting the same exact message no less. Can you please explain this to me? BsroiaadnTalk 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Could be because this user is the banned User:Aussiebrisguy. The fact that his/her edits are only to Anna Anderson and Lady Louise Windsor shows quite easily that it is the same user. And he's already causing problems on the Lady Louise article. --UpDown 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Aussiebrisguy wasn't actually banned. He was blocked for a month after creating a sock farm to avoid blocks and the month block expired early July so he is now welcome to edit, provided he abides by our policies. However, if he continues to violate policy his IPs will be range blocked again. So please feel free to let me know on my talk page if there are any further problems. Sarah 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is User:UpDown the guy the who ignores discussion boards and repeatedly forces his POV? I've noticed this on a wide range of wikipedia sites. Finneganw 03:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm the one who users the law (ie 1917 Letters Patent) as fact rather my own opinion, which is what you do. --UpDown 12:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree about QuestforAnastasia. and her personal attacks arent helpful either. she obviously has an agenda. Onopearls 15:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Anderson

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.--Bookworm857158367 12:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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, Ono 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Anderson

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. --Bookworm857158367 12:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Atropos 00:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been doing. Those are subsections of the previous section; they have four equals instead of three.

[edit] Lorem

[edit] Ipsum

Please become more familiar with wikisyntax and the manual of style. Its important. Atropos 01:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's just how it handles them. You're gonna have to live with the similarities. Atropos 01:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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}}. Tikiwont 08:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Foundation. --Tikiwont 10:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
With respect to your question on my talk page, see above link. Moreover, you state the problem well in a different context.[1] --Tikiwont 15:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Bookworm857158367 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Bookworm857158367 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Bookworm857158367 17:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits to Anna Anderson.

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." --Bookworm857158367 03:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits to Sophie Buxhoeveden and Anna Anderson

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. --Bookworm857158367 04:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Bookworm857158367 11:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Sarah 05:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Bookworm857158367 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Bookworm857158367 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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.--Bookworm857158367 18:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Bookworm857158367 05:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Bookworm857158367 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Re:Elizabeth Taylor

You are very welcome to comment at talk:Elizabeth Taylor on the issue of her nationality. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --Bookworm857158367 17:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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. --Bookworm857158367 17:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. ---

Rustam

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. --

Rustam

01:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Anderson

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)

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)

[edit] December 2007

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)

[edit] Ludwig II

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! Saudade7 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Edits to Brisbane

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romanov remains

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)

[edit] Marilyn Rowe

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)

[edit] Ludwig

I saw you removed all the cleanup tags from Ludwig II of Bavaria‎, but you didn't add any references. I've reverted that until citations can be added. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - all I saw was the deletion of the cleanup tags. Thanks for clarifying! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puppetry

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)

[edit] princess Diana

Please don't revert a mass of changes without discussion. If you have problems discuss them on the talk page. Thanks/--Docg 03:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Twenty Years 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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? Twenty Years 14:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Hilda Toledano

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)

I urge you again to contribute to the discussion on the talk page. It is inappropriate to repeatedly revert multiple other editors without any discussion. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to the comments you made on my talk page on the page Talk:Hilda_Toledano. Five editors have come to a consensus on the present wording. If you have objections, please explain them. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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♠Dil 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.
Pretty simple standard: no article, no listing. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, after all. --Calton | Talk 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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).

If anyone needs to do some explaining, that would be you. --Calton | Talk 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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 | Talk 20:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Don't template the regulars

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.

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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. Gwernol 10:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Pierre Gilliard

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)

[edit] Ondine

May I alert you to a discussion on merging Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet) into Ondine (Henze)! — Robert Greer (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)