|
User talk:Bookworm857158367/Archive 1
WelcomeHello, Bookworm857158367/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you will enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! You can sign your name on talk and voting pages using four tildes, (~~~~), which produces your username, the time, and the date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) "The Thorn Birds" was a pretty good book. However, I would like to suggest you set up the book and characters in a single article under the book's title. Rklawton 03:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC) I'd echo the suggestion above. List of General Hospital characters would be a better place for information about the characters. Check out WP:FICT as well, please.--Kchase02 T 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Talk pagehey! you edited right after me. Anyway just a hi! Please do not blank out comments on the talk page. This is considered vandalism. Rklawton 13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Wold Newton and Tommy WestphallTechnically you can add the characters from Lost along with more updated programs on TV, I came across this hypothesis Tommy Westphall which explains the cross-over of a multitude of characters from different TV shows all thanks to ONE minor character in St. Elsehwere. For a clearer idea on how they link up check this diagram: crossover diagram and this site: Tommy Westphall's Mind - however I still think we should try to find correlations between the original Newtonverse families effected by the meteorite or related to them with the more current characters... Piecraft 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey just wanted to say good work on the List, thanks a lot with all the added research and effort. I'm still going at it hard trying to string the more "horror" -related characters into the family, but don't let it hold you back, you've truly made this list better from its earlier days. Keep it obscure! Piecraft 00:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wold Newton Universe listHi sorry but I am currently away on work. But it is a shame the list was deleted. I do believe there need to be new re-administered ammendments to the list what with new information coming to light i.e the sopranos are not related to corleone familyand the other mistakes that were pointed out by other users in the deletion poll. I look forward to the list,s implementation on your page, i will be sure to contribute where i can. Piecraft I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia with this article, however the format of the article needs a lot of work. Have you read How to write a great article? If you haven't I suggest that you do. Also, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia as the article is now going to have to be cleaned up by someone who knows how to cite properly. If you need help, please let me know! Stubbleboy 23:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: Allegra ByronOkay well I want to help you, so I'm going to look at the article in detail tomorrow. When I say wikify, I mean like compair your article to one that I've edited like Tyke (elephant). See how sections are used to seperate the incident. They're used the same way when adding sections to an individuals like...like say Abraham Lincoln - although I understand his is rather broad. See what I mean? Stubbleboy 00:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay so here is what I did
Thanks!For your nice comments. I'll see you around. If you need anything please let me know, you know how to find me! Stubbleboy 01:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:ElizabethMedoraLeigh.jpgThanks for uploading Image:ElizabethMedoraLeigh.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well. For more information on using images, see the following pages: This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Original researchHiya, I though I'd try to explain things here on your talkpage, in order to avoid future disputes. Please be aware that Wikipedia has very strict policies about verifiability and no original research, and it is not enough for you to simply say that "something is true", without supplying references. Also, when someone adds the {{originalresearch}} tag to an article, the way to deal with it is to engage in a good faith discussion about it on the talkpage. If you have a solid case that the tag is unwarranted, this can be discussed in a calm and civil manner, and the tag can easily be removed once consensus has been confirmed. However, simply removing it yourself and saying that it is unfounded, especially as you're a (relatively) inexperienced editor, is not wise. There are many common mistakes that new Wikipedia editors fall into, and believe it or not, I'm actually trying to help you avoid them. For example, please be aware that each editor on Wikipedia has a voice, and when there is disagreement, the Wikipedia method of dealing with disputes is to engage in good faith discussions, rather than for one editor to try and make unilateral decisions and or simply try to force their will on other editors. If you continue on the course that you have been, by refusing to engage in good faith discussions, the next step in dispute resolution will be to generate some type of informal or formal "Request for Comment", which draws in the opinions of other editors to examine a situation and offer third-party opinions. I'd rather avoid that at this point, since the impact on you and the articles that you have been editing might be more negative than you anticipate. So please, I recommend that you review the policy on assuming good faith, and endeavor to engage in constructive discussions, rather than proceeding down the path of Wikipedia:Edit wars. --Elonka 16:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Your edit to LuLu SpencerYour recent edit to LuLu Spencer (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 05:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Peer review requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_reviewI noticed you just added a bunch of peer review requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review. The peer review process is usually quite lengthy and involved, and it's best if you pick one article to work on at a time. Otherwise, you'll be overwhelmed trying to keep up with all the suggestions, and you'll also overwhelm the good folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review who undertake the peer reviews (which is not a simple process). Please consider removing some of your review requests so as not to overburden yourself and other editors. Gzkn 06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) WikiProject Biography/AssessmentWould you mind spreading your requests over a few days, rather than block nominating. Thanks + Ceoil 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
PreviewI would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Dakota 06:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Princess E. of HesseDrifted in from peer review with a few cosmetic changes, but I wanted to say- what a sad story. Part of that is just the tragic death of a small child, but the things that were written about her really testify to what a powerful effect she had on the adults around her. How sad. Thanks for putting it together & well done. Kaisershatner 15:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Don't forget those edit summariesWhen editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. You're doing a great job on those Grand Duchess articles. Keep it up! Gzkn 08:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC) SuggestionThe captions on the images could be more descriptive. For example an short word on, say, the connection between Rasputin and Princess Irina. This is a good example of how to go about it. + Ceoil 23:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC) DYK!
Nishkid64 15:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Image copyright problem with Image:MariaKirillovna.jpgThank you for uploading Image:MariaKirillovna.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Angr 07:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC) North Dakota-bio-stubHi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template. In the case of your new stub type, it isis not named according to stub naming guidelines, and is likely not to reach the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type. It also has insufficient formatting to allow stubs to be categorised. Your new stub type is currently listed for deletion at WP:SFD - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should be retained. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Kevin Thompson articleI agree with you that minor criminals shouldn't get their own articles. It does seem to be the case, however, that Thompson has garnered significant media attention. Given the extraordinary range of Wikipedia articles, I think a minor criminal celebrity like Thompson probably deserves his own article. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 14:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Hello again. Even if you don't think that Thompson is notable, I doubt that the article deserves the speedy deletion tag. Perhaps you should replace it with a notability tag etc. Best, Hydriotaphia 14:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Anna Maria FerreroI see that not only did you send me a message (unsigned), but you also managed to delete -- or arranged to have deleted -- the page on Anna Maria Ferrero in the space of a very short time. A little courtesy would have required that you allow me the opportunity to tag "hangon" onto the article and a little more time for the article to be fleshed out. One cannot always finish every article one begins within a few hours. FYI, and to quell your fears of non-notability, Anna Maria Ferrero is a very distinguished Italian stage actress and film star with 50+ films to her credit [1], has worked with some of the greatest Italian directors and frequently with Vittorio Gassoman, who was her companion. I can only assume that it is ignorance that made you take such precipitate action. Thanks! Orbicle 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have also noticed from your recent history that your main contributions to Wikipedia seem to consist almost entirely of the speedy deletion of other people's work. Wikipedia's dictum of assuming "good faith" is becoming hard to observe in your case. Orbicle 11:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
BiographiesHello, Bookworm. Thanks for your note. Sorry for the confusion. I removed my comment from the assessment page. Maybe another person from WikiProject Biography will know for sure and can rate these stories. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Hi. Thanks for the rating. While I don't disagree that it's a B class, I was puzzled by the comment about in line references. Surely that's all it has?. Or are you referring to the gaps in the in line references, where we've inserted citation requests? --Dweller 15:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Bill Haywood GAWe've made some changes according to your recommendations in the Bill Haywood article. Do you think it's good enough to pass GA now? --JerryOrr 16:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Hazel MinerThe article Hazel Miner you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold.
Ceoil 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)==FAC== Just a note to say I'm looking forward to the day you nominate some of the Romanova bios for FAC. Anastasia in paticular is a fine article; Olga is close too, imo. + Ceoil 23:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well deserved, Bookworm857158367, if that's in fact your real name. Ceoil 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC) HiI'm sorry, I noticed that and I have already deleted the notice off your talk page. --Nevhood 19:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC) your assessment requestsFirst of all, congratulations on a series of Good Articles. Well done! I have done all your assessment requests with Project Russia, and now have a request for you: please do not remove the current assessment ratings. They form a frame of reference for the reviewer, and the importance rating should not change when the article has been rewritten. Removing (importance) ratings only causes for more work to be done, and that's energy better spent elsewhere. Thanks for your cooperation. Errabee 23:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject North DakotaA (belated) welcome to WikiProject North Dakota. It's great to have you join the project! --MatthewUND(talk) 08:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Allow me WikiProject Biography
StirpesThere's no problem in deleting the article, but then many others should be deleted too (some even created on 2005), don't you think double standars are dangerous? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lolito81 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC). Does it count a discussion about the board on another web/forum which is listed on the "Internet forums" category of Wikipedia? -- Lolito81 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Bret MeyerI respect your decision to delete my article on Bret Meyer, but I must argue that I have seen and visited biographies of football players of the same division and notability as Meyer. Also, Meyer was mentioned in the article about the Independence Bowl as the game's MVP, as well as a notable alum of Atlantic High School in the article bearing its name. Therefore, I believe my article is not worthy of deletion. Can you please clarify your decision? Rainblade 23:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC) My apologiesRainblade 00:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC) DYK
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much Bookworm for all your work.Kindly nominated by Camptown. Feel free to selfnominate!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Michael Scott ODonnellHi my article on Michael Scott ODonnell is a good article as it gives information on a notable american musican. He has been mentioned on many web sites like Borders Books and Music http://www.bordersstores.com/events/event_detail.jsp?SEID=126942. If you enter his name on any search engines you will get many hits. I know it is a good article and should be in wikipedia. Thanks --Mso music 03:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Four Fags in a Fabulous Car"Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Four Fags in a Fabulous Car) are considered nonsense."
DYK
--howcheng {chat} 07:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC) The March of Those Who DisagreeMy article The March of Those Who Disagree which was deleted within minutes of my creating it was been recreated and expanded. It is noteworthy as it has been covered by CNN and ABC and has gotten a vote of support from another user already on it's talk page. --BillyTFried 02:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Rating Polkinghorne ArticleHi Bookworm. Thanks for rating the John Polkinghorne article. Can you suggest how we might improve it? NBeale 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
McCarthy, McCarthyismI am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Christian martyrsThanks for your explanation about the Romanov servants. I had diffused hundreds of Category:Christian martyrs into sub-categories over the last few months, but was not sure how to categorise the articles on the Romanov household. I looked up a few sources, in and outside Wikipedia, and none reported a distinction between the family and the servants, so I assumed that the servants were likewise Passion Bearers. Apologies if I missed something. The other reason for putting them all in Category:Passion bearers was that it kept them together. One possibility now would be to categorise most of the servants as Category:Orthodox martyrs of Modern Times, but Alexei Trupp as Category:Catholic martyrs of Modern Times. Another would be to keep them together in a new category e.g. "Canonised servants of the Romanov household", which could be placed as a sub-category of Category:Orthodox martyrs of Modern Times. Would you support either of these, or suggest something different? - Fayenatic london (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
DYK
--Carabinieri 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Varvara Nikolaevna Yakovleva
--howcheng {chat} 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Ryan St. Anne ScottThanks for your comment on my talk page, I'm sure that your edits were all done in good faith. I'm watching the discussion on the talk page, but I won't take part in it, as I haven't got anything to say (I will also allow myself, not to read the article in question, due to time constraints...). All the best. --Mbimmler 16:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Bill LipschutzTinamarie11 01:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Hi - Can you give me some insight as how to improve the article I wrote on Bill Lipschutz. Thanks! Ines.The official source http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/content.jsp?objectid=18000 carries Ines and not Inés. Show me a more official source that contradicts this please ??? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Anna SchmidtI'm not sure if i respond here or on my user talk page (Crocodyle) where you left a message, so am doing both. My reference to the changes made on Anna Schmidt's page is Anna herself, and am unsure how to cite that? I'm guessing i could make a footnote and say that Anna is the reference, but is that enough? Let me know and i'll happily fill in what is needed....thanks! crocodyle 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Sure I do, its called "undue weight". No plot summaries needed. No new section needed. It's trivia, and should ultimately be removed, along with the rest of the fictional references. See WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Senior SenatorHey. I do not know you, but i see you are a member of North Dakota Wikiproject. Please, could you answer my question. I would like to point out that in 1992, Kent Conrad retired, and Byron Dorgan won. Dorgan is still in the Senate. And then Conrad ran and won a few years later. Wouldn't this make Dorgan senior senator from North Dakota?? Thanks, Politics rule 22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Robyn DawkinsThe article Robyn Dawkins has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Merope 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I was rather hoping to obtain your opinion on whether you were happy with what I proposed, before the DRV discussion was closed. I hope that you are. As you know, there's a whole other discussion going on, at RFC and before the arbitration committee, and the deletion review of the deletion of the articles that you created was becoming a proxy for it. I think that, this way, you get the opportunity to go back to writing articles without becoming sucked into the arbitration case. I said in the deletion review that what I think that we should be doing is helping editors like you. So here's some help: The 60 Minutes article wasn't a good source to be using, because it was little more than interviews with people talking about themselves, and a he-said-she-said account of things. Effectively, it was autobiography. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the problems that are incurred when people talk about themselves. Good sources are independent sources, where people independent of the subject have sat down, researched, fact checked, and reviewed what they publish on a subject. Similarly, taking an incident that involves multiple people who dispute each other, and presenting it as a collection of individual biographies, isn't a good way to present that incident, because it leads to one-sided articles. Per our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, we don't want one-sided articles. I infer from what you wrote here that you already understand and wholly agree with some of the other help that I could give, on the subjects of article scopes and redirects from an individual name to a broad-scope article, so I won't bore you with those points. ☺ Uncle G 11:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Anna SchmidtI noticed that someone changed the Anna Schmidt page to Baby Jessica....citing that this should be about the case, not the person???????? Without the person, there is no case!!! Also....the part where Anna/Chloe have not seen their father since last year was erased....yet it still mentions that Dan was hurt and has a disability. If one does not belong, neither does the other. And i am curious as to who the person(s) are that have changed this? I have a letter in to where you told me to send one (info...something)....is that where this person is from? Why didn't he/she answer me??? crocodyle 07:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Last call......Anna is her name.....This is what i wrote to the jokester that thinks he's a supreme being: In a response to bookworm about the ongoing joke you call an article now, you claim that i want someone to take sides saying i'm in contravention of "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" or something of that nature....when in fact it is you that is in "contradiction" of your own policy. You have obviously sided with the DeBoers point of view....as you show the impact it had on them, and nothing about the impact it had on the Schmidts. You claim the case was in Ann Arbor, Mich....which is partly true, as it started and continued in Cedar Rapids, IA for quite some time, before the DeBoers took it to the Michigan courts. From the beginning, Iowa courts ruled in favor of the Schmidts...as did the Michigan courts....until the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Schmidts....yet again. Who was Anna really handed over to, crying (as most photographs show)....the Schmidts?? Not so, as you stated. Another party handled the exchange. And then you harp on the fact that Dan Schmidt is disabled and hasn't worked (this, over 10 yrs AFTER the case is over)....that has nothing more to do with the case than the fact that he no longer has any sort of contact with his 2 daughters, which you felt compelled to remove. Other articles (Ryan St Anne Scott for one) has used a person's own statement from another area of Wikipedia, so why is this situation any different? And then the mention of a book written by the DeBoer's....hoping Anna would read it.... the Hear my Voice advocacy group they (the DeBoers again...) started up.....and the fact that they have adopted a son. What does any of this have to do with the case?? I never asked anyone to take sides....only to be fair. I didn't come in and erase everything...i made 2 small changes....that ARE fact. I didn't do away with the pathetic "cry on my shoulder" paragraph about the "Impact on the DeBoers". So go ahead and make your own rules....be the big man on campus....i once respected Wikipedia... crocodyle 05:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC) The WikiProject North Dakota Newsletter - Issue 1
This newsletter has been delivered to you by --MatthewUND(talk) 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) The WikiProject North Dakota Newsletter - Issue 2 - July 2007This newsletter has been delivered to you by --MatthewUND(talk) 22:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Anna AndersonI didnt add any opinions, just copy edits. and i went through and read the article. the changes i made were gramatically correct. Best wishes, Onopearls 13:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC) um.. You keep adding POV such as "Franziska is intellegent looking in this photograph." That's just flat out stupid. And then you go on to quote Prince Christophur 55 times in the article. Why does he get any more say than anyone else? You corrected nothing and just added back your POV rants. Bookworm am recommending that the know vandal be blocked for continually breaking the 3RR rule. Sadly it seems to be necessary. Sufficient warnings have been given. The POV rants continue and they are always unsigned. The history reveals who it is. Finneganw 16:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect. The proof is the eyewitness testimony of Yurovsky and the other executioners. But whatever, I won't pick a fight on that point. Vidor 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Just saw what you typed for User:Questforanastasia. I must say it was very reasonable. The future will tell whether that person behaves in reasonable manner. Finneganw 16:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I read this article twice yesterday and once this morning. It's still not perfect, but the changes you have made are extraordinary.
knock knockHi, just a tiny FYI, at least using my monitor & browser some of the stuff on your userpage overlaps badly.. the "Catholic" userbox is covered by another; the TOC spills over the Gnostic and INTP userboxes, etc. Anyhow, I've seen you around. KUTGW. :-) Ling.Nut 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
pretty shiny thing
Anna Anderson ad nauseumBookworm just thought you should know that Chatnoir has been banned from a number of sites for deliberate vandalism of articles connected with Anna Anderson. I can see he is ranting yet again with unsourced information on the wikipedia page. Please realise Prince Christopher of Greece was witness in the house of his stepson and niece in the United States to Anna Anderson. He knew why she was kicked out of their house. Please do not alter this section of the article as it is fully verified. He knew the real Grand Duchess Anastasia very, very well and also had the misfortune of seeing the fraud. That is why people try to diminish his testimony like that of so many others who do not agree with their agenda. Finneganw 13:52, 19 July 2007 TiptoetyHi. Just a quick note regarding the Tiptoety article you just CSD'ed. Actually I saw the article too and I changed the reason for CSDing from nonsense to attack, as it is a dig at an editor. (Which means I am spending too much time on Wikipedia, when I can regocnize so many editors :O) ) Anyway, just letting you know. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
TiptoetyHi I wasnt attacking Tiptoety, I was making a statement. It may have been an obscene statement but it was fair game. He started it. I dont think i deserve to be blocked over a silly misunderstanding. Please reconsider your desicion.
User:MattcliffordThank you, i will get him blocked. Thanks again, Tiptoety 01:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
User:MattClifford2Great, here we go with a sockpuppet investigation, I will have to wait to report him until he does some kind of abuse. Keep an eye on him and so will i and hopefully we can get him. Tiptoety 02:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject North Dakota Newsletter - Issue 3 - August 2007
This newsletter has been delivered to you by --MatthewUND(talk) 00:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC) The WikiProject North Dakota Newsletter - Issue 3 - August 2007
This newsletter has been delivered to you by --MatthewUND(talk) 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) Anna Anderson ad nauseum 2I really don't like to reopen this issue. On this occasion I feel I must. I believe not to acknowledge the link of Anna Anderson to Franziska Schankowska to be now impossible. The wikipedia article already states that Anderson's DNA matched Karl Maucher. It is well known it did not match any of the Romanovs. There is no evidence to claim that Anderson's DNA matched anybody else. Therefore like reputable historians John Van Der Kiste and Coryne Hall, I must concur that Anderson was Schankowska. These two historians are greatly respected. Schankowska's date of birth is also recorded. I know that Kurth denies the link. He is definitely in the minority though on this point. I am happy to see Kurth in the article as both sides do need to be represented. When Kurth is not found to be accurate it is best not to use him as a source. Remember his book was written before the DNA evidence was released and he has had a vested interest since the release of the DNA evidence in trying to defend his work. That is his right. It does not mean others have to agree where his information is outdated.Finneganw 16.06, 5 August 2007 (UTC) If she was not FS who on earth was she? She must have been a Schankowska as her DNA would not match any other family in sequence. She certainly wasn't a Romanov and Anderson was not her real name. Perhaps we should dispense with calling her anything and just call her Fraulein Unbekannte as she was originally called? That would be silly though as her DNA has given an identity. She has been identified as being much older than Anastasia. She wasn't born in 1901 but earlier. Try to move beyond Kurth as he is inaccurate in his findings and definitely in the minority on her DNA. I would respectfully suggest you leave the date and identity as FS unless you can find a vast range of historians who refute besides Kurth. Finneganw 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Stepping back from it all we both know there are two sides to this hence what I have done in the date box. It is wrong to say it is completely unknown. That is not true. I do know my DNA is nothing like FS and I am part German on the maternal side. She was a Schankowska. It is not worth denying. As all the other Schankowskas were identified it leaves her as being FS. Only those who don't wish it to be so deny this. Does it really worry you if she is FS? It shouldn't. Where is the evidence that she was not? It is mere heresay and attempts by those without proof who support her as AA to not find a solution. Kurth is the main supporter. Find other historians who agree with him? It is not an easy task. The vast majority of evidence is in favour of her being FS. They can't all be wrong. Finneganw 18:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC) smile Bookworm!!!!!!!!!!! We can agree on the latest I think!!!!! Finneganw 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Hi Bookworm. Thanks for your constructive comments. They are always appreciated as I know they are made in an effort to assist. I have also been trying to tidy up the article, as you probably have gathered, after another contributor placed in useful information that was not so well presented. I obviously, due to tiredness, overlooked certain sections. For that I apologise. We are though, both of us, only human. The term 'ibid' usually refers to 'as above'. Of course some future editors will not know this, for whatever reason. It is a commonly used expression in most academic works. New editors have a responsibility when editing an existing piece to ensure that previous referencing is looked at and not carelessly ommitted. None of us are perfect though. This article has come a long way. The term 'biased' in my experience is one levelled at sections of any text that somebody does not feel fits with their particular agenda. The information could be 100% correct and simply not liked by a reader. That does not mean it is biased. You will probably have noted a contributor that sadly keeps vandalising the text, and has previously been blocked, is raising their head again. They left a series of unusual rants on the discussion page. Would you also be kind enough to look out for this person please? They do not use a a registered name and have been repeatedly warned and advised to obtain a registered name. Their address starts always with 72. ..... . You will notice this when you look at a history of the page. Perhaps they need to be blocked once again. They are avoiding being banned this time for abuse of the 3RR rule, but their agenda remains the same. Thanks for your assistance as always. Finneganw 07:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Anastasia photoAnastasia was not 9 years old in that photo, she was 13 years old.The picture was taken sometime in 1914, she was 13 at that time, it was not taken in 1910 when she was 9.--Robors 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Really, I didn't know, although there were 2 color photos taken of Maria and Anastasia with a formal dress in 1913.If I put my picture of Anastasia in section about her childhoood in the article about her, please don't delete because this can be used as a picture in a section about her childhood since she was 9 years old back then, and I don't want this picture to become an orphaned picture.I also don't want us to have problems with each other because of a silly picture.Wikipedia is not a place for arguing.--Robors 19:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Anna Anderson unfortunatelyBookworm I believe something needs to be done to deal with the anonymous contributor who is continuing to alter (others would say vandalise) the content of the Anna Anderson page. They always have 72,etc attached to their unusual contributions. It is coming from the same place within a certain range of numbers. I think these may have to be blocked. I don't think it is a coincidence. The person doing this has been repeatedly warned on all the talk pages. You will notice this. The same person has already been blocked previously and does not appear to understand the consequences of their previous actions. Can you get back to me about what you believe is appropriate action to stop this? Thanks Finneganw 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Vandalism of articlesThought I would draw to your attention User:24.225.88.194 and their vandalism to the Anna Anderson and Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna of Russia pages. This contributor has been repeatedly warned on their talk page about the consequences of vandalism by other editors. What do you suggest should occur next? They have been warned repeatedly about being blocked. Thanks Bookworm. Finneganw 01:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC) More on Anna AndersonThe testimony you referred to today was considered heresay by the court. People provide false evidence to courts all the time.Finneganw 14:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Bookworm you should realise that Kurth is largely discredited when it comes to Anna Anderson. I understand why he is desperately trying to defend his work. I have no problem with him doing this at all. His work was sort of acceptable before the DNA evidence was revealed. Now it is just rather out of date and inaccurate. He is quite wrong about Prince Christopher's book though, like on many other issues. He should really do some more research and update his very outdated book rather than attempting to discredit every primary source that does not agree with his agenda in his secondary source publication. Greater reading provides the answers. Coming into contact with surviving members of the Romanov dynasty aslo had provided me with a great deal of information. I know for a fact Kurth has never met these people. Kurth seems to run away from anything that disproves his case. One wonders why he thinks his opinions are superior to people who actually knew about the matter personally rather than learning about them from Anna Anderson, very late on in her life as did Blair Lovell, when all others who knew about the affair were dead. I guess it is just easier to slander the dead. It is hardly a credible academic method of research. I think I would trust Ian Vorres far more as he had extended access to Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna who was at least a real Romanov and had never had a history of being repeatedly in mental asylums. She also knew the real Grand Duchess Anastasia and had also met Anna Anderson. That is very well documented and irrefutable verifiable fact. [[User:Finneganw]Finneganw]] 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC) How do I know? It's very simple Bookworm. I know members of the Romanov family who can verify it all. I'm not quite sure why you have any respect for Kurth. He has been largely discredited. I understand why he still attempts to justify his book, but his attempts are becoming more and more desperate. It's quite sad really. Finneganw 16:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Purported discoverySince you added details about the purported discovery, feel free to remove the brief information supplied by me earlier. This applies to all relevant articles. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Vandalism again by culprit 72.xxx on Anna Anderson pageThought I would bring to your attention the vandalism of the Anna Anderson article by the same culprit starting with 72. I think something needs to be done about this anonymous 'contributor'. Thanks for your assistance. Finneganw 13:46. 1 September 2007 (UTC) The WikiProject North Dakota Newsletter - Issue 4 - September 2007
This newsletter has been delivered to you by --MatthewUND(talk) 06:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Further Vandalism of Anna Anderson by 209.136.71.163In spite of repeated warnings by you and me, the above mentioned user persists in removing information from the Anna Anderson page on external links. I have given this user repeated warnings to desist in this behaviour. I believe the next time this occurs the user should be blocked. Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Finneganw 13:49. 19 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your constant vigilance on the page. I think together we are keeping some of the vandals at bay. Finneganw 15:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Thought you would like to know that 209.136.71.163 has once again vandalised the Anna Anderson page after repeated warnings to desist. I believe this user needs to be blocked. Will you attend to this matter? Thanks Finneganw 01:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC) I know exactly who 'anonymous user' doing the vandalism is. Would rather not mention name on public forum but believe me he is a mainstay in the AA community all over the net. Why can my mention of the book B. Himmelstjerna, "Im Angesicht der Revolution", 1922, publisher Steeler not be left in the article? It is in itself a published reference. In this book Ernie's trip is mentioned, proving it was not new info when Anderson mentioned it in 1925. I feel this is important. User: Aggiebean —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Larissacloseup.jpgThanks for uploading Image:Larissacloseup.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC) The WikiProject North Dakota Newsletter - Issue 5 - October 2007
This newsletter has been delivered to you by --MatthewUND(talk) 08:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Sara SidleIt's very nice of you to apologize like that. If you go to User:Yamanbaiia you'll see that english is indeed not my first language, I hate when people notices so i always try to pay attention to the grammar etc; but as i said, it was very late and at the same time i was (ironically) doing my english homework. I see you are an experienced editor so if you want me to back off the article just say the word (respect for the elder ;) ), i don't really care about Sara Sidle. I did such drastic changes because i've been fixing Grissom for weeks and i'm kind of getting the idea of how a "CSI character" article should look like to be WP:GA. Let's be friends :)Yamanbaiia 17:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Smile! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. The WikiProject North Dakota Newsletter - Issue 6 - November 2007
This newsletter has been delivered to you by --MatthewUND(talk) 08:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Peer reviewsHi! I noticed there are two Biography peer review requests of yours (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Nicholas II of Russia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Alexandra Fyodorovna (Alix of Hesse)) that haven't gathered any comments. I expect the main suggestion raised would be to include more inline citations. What would you like to do with these requests? Relist them, archive them or delete them? Let me know and I'll do whichever you decide, thanks. DrKiernan 08:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Grand Duchess AnastasiaBookworm the article is on Anastasia and not Anna Anderson. I suggest with respect that you take information that supports your AA ideas to the Anderson page rather than putting information about an imposter, only supported by a discredited author, on a page about the real Grand Duchess Anastasia. That is after all why there is a page about Anderson and it is listed under imposters. I know you admire Kurth. Do not expect others to do so. It's very hard to understand why as he is totally discredited. You are strictly in a minority. When are you going to realise this? I wonder whether you will still be a fan after he is proven to be yet again wrong with the results of the latest DNA investigations? I suggest its time for you to jump ship before you lose face completely. It is well known ears are not credible in comparison to DNA evidence. Only AA supporters cling to such nonsense. Credible historians do not. Anderson is no relative of any Romanov so why on earth do you defend her? The mind boggles at the reasoning and admiring Kurth is no answer. Please do not put false information about her on the page about Anastasia. She was a fraud. Do try to broaden your sources apart from Kurth.Finneganw 04:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Once again I reiterate the article is about the Grand Duchess Anastasia (1901-1918). She died in Ekaterinburg. There is nothing else to add after 17 July 1918 except fraudulent information connected with a sadly mentally ill pretender. Repeated DNA tests proved this beyond doubt. Information about Anderson should be linked to the Anderson page and not placed as if it is at all credible on a page about a 17 year old murdered Grand Duchess. What you are trying to do is classified as historical revisionism and is not worthy of you.Finneganw 4:52, 26 Novemeber 2007 (UTC) People are interested in Grand Duchess Anastasia in connection with Russian history and the Russian Imperial family. People interested in pretenders are interested in Anna Anderson/Manahan. If they actually come into contact with information about the real Grand Duchess through the pretender well and good, but please do not presume that those interested in Russian history have the slightest interest in Anderson. Finneganw 5.20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Bookworm you hit the nail on the head about Anderson. It is a legend and not fact connected with Grand Duchess Anastasia. Please do keep your interest in the legend, but please do not attempt to pass it off as having any connection with the facts about the life of Grand Duchess Anastasia. Finneganw 5.33, 26 November 2007 (UTC) I would suggest the solution to all of this is for you to remove reference to a documentary which you have not referenced as required. Instead you choose to verify a television documentary with a book. Since when has that been wikipedia policy? Kurth remains with Lovell the only real backers of Anderson since repeated DNA tests proved her to be a fraud and not a Romanov. That is fact. You seem to, for whatever reason, admire Kurth. You are most welcome to do so. Please don't expect others to do so though when the overwhelming majority of historical and scientific information discredits him. That is also fact. The onus is on you to find others who agree with him. Kurth is and has always been an Anderson supporter. He makes his living out of it. Why would he wish to ruin the goose that laid the golden egg for him? Think about it. Try to look at this all objectively. The Grand Duchess Anastasia page is meant to be about HER and NOT about Anderson. The two have no connection since repeated DNA testing proved that Anderson was a fraud and in no way related to the Romanovs. It's as simple as that. You are of course most welcome to refer others to the Anderson page. That is where all of the information about Anderson belongs apart from a very brief referral. There is no 'incident'. I have just been wishing no confusion exists for wikipedia readers. They deserve that don't you think? Finneganw 10:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finneganw (talk • contribs) VorresYou have not fixed the Vorres situation. In fact what you have done is distorted it. As a journalist you should realise there are different editions of publications. Page numbers vary from edition to edition. If you had bothered at all to read the entry you will have realised that the 3rd edition was listed that refers to page numbers. Please be more careful in future. Finneganw 5:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC) anistasiaI understand your point, however all I did was insert a link where a [citation needed] was located, so that people could cross reference what was already on that page, if you have a more valuble link feel free to replace the ABC report...when I posted it, the link was only about 10 hrs. old.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Very curious how you conveniently choose to ignore correct verification processes when they don't suit your agenda. I am very diasppointed in your behaviour. Another editor has put the correct verification twice and you have removed it both times in favour of a book which shows you are not interested at all in correct verification processes. I suggest you restore what you know is the correct citation for the television documentary and Kurth was in it. I will give you time to do this. I suggest you look at it rather than run away from the issue. As for your rewording it is inappropriate and patronising. Finneganw 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC) My objection is the blatant dishonesty of the citation. If you refer to a television documentary, do not attempt to verify it with a book. It is not acceptable and is against wikipedia policy on verification. It has been corrected twice already and you chose to remove the information on both occasions which is rather bizarre to say the least. Kurth's book is not the citation. It will be removed if you do not. I will give you the opportunity to do so. Finneganw 3:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finneganw (talk • contribs) It is well know that Forensic scientists use DNA to determine identity. They rarely if ever now use photos in the manner you are pretending to foist on the unsuspecting. That went out with the dark ages. I wish you would be a touch more accurate and stop trying to falsify information to suit a discredited agenda. It is really quite tiresome your attempt to cover up reality. Where is the Bookworm of old that so many once respected? If you had actually watched the NOVA program you would realise you are backing the wrong horse. Finneganw 06:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC) The WikiProject North Dakota Newsletter - Issue 7 - December 2007
-This newsletter has been delivered to you by --MatthewUND(talk) 00:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Grand Duchess OlgaBookworm why don't you give it a rest on trying to ram down the throats of others your interest in Anna Anderson? She has nothing at all to do with Grand Duchess Olga or in fact Grand Duchess Anastasia. It is well proven and documented by extensive DNA testing that Anna Anderson was not in any way related to the Romanovs. The article on Grand Duchess Olga is meant to be about her and not your interest in Anna Anderson. It is fact that there is far more information known about Olga than her younger sister Anastasia. The bizarre survival stories connected with Anna Anderson are myth and fantasy and have no place in the article on Olga. Leave them out of the article on Olga please and by all means include them in the Anna Anderson page where they belong. Finneganw 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Hi. I noticed you requested an Assessment for Biography relating to the above two articles. Having taken a peek, I have to say that Clara is probably notable due to her occupation as an opera singer, and I have tweaked the article to emphasise this, and to give it the best chance of surviving any deletion action (which I will not instigate). I think this will probably gain an assessment in the shortest time. However, I cannot immediately see how Susy is notable in the least. To merely exist as the offspring of a clearly notable person is not enough to confer notability. And, as you know, notability is not transferable, not even from father to daughter. Whilst Clara has a notable calling, I cannot see that Susy does. Her tragically early demise at 24 does not create a unique notability, nor does it increase an existing one. I have therefore tagged her article to reflect this, and I am hoping that someone can introduce a clear line of fame or infamy into the article. I will not be nominating the article for deletion, but you should expect someone to in the future, as the article stands. I believe the question of notability needs to be addressed before an assessment is carried out. Best of luck with the article. Ref (chew)(do) 20:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=link}
