User talk:Trusilver/archive9

The article Martin Lindstedt has been scheduled for deletion. If you would be so kind as to vote in favor of Keeping the article, it would be much appreciated. I know there are restrictions on rounding up people to participate in this debate, but I don't think my commenting here violates them. Anyhoo, my attempts to edit the article Stephen Schwartz (journalist) are pretty transparently the motive behind this scheduled deletion. While my actions in that article may not have been in the finest traditions of a NPOV (I freely admit I intensely dislike Mr. Schwartz - although the same could possibly be said about the majority of people aware of his existence - I don't think my attempts to include embarrassing anecdotes from his life, with reasonable evidentiary citations, were particularly infamous), I think its a lot MORE non-NPOV for an article of which I've been the de facto caretaker, to be targeted for deletion on a retaliatory basis, by the same Admin who intervened in the case of the Schwartz article, as seems quite transparently to be the case here. Thanks. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to press you (its ages away, and I appreciate your job makes WP access rather patchy) but have you chance to poke my edits around? Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got about three weeks deep into your edits last night. Still working on it. I've notice a few things, nothing terribly noteworthy. I'll let you know all that I think could be an issue when I have finished. Trusilver 05:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, and thanks for the speedy response :). I'll try and lay off editing a bit to make your job easier! also I have a paper that I need to hand in in about five hours and am only half-way through Ironholds (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you can do would be appreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

I don't understand your most recent comment on Talk:Paul Watson. I have not attempted to place any of this material on the article page since mediation started. What I have done, is repeatedly revise the language I propose should be added there, in the hope of finding something acceptable to the others (other than leaving Wikipedia, that is). The others have proposed no specific alternative language but have repeatedly suggested I go to a different article.

My most recent proposal incorporates suggestions made by the others, to be less specific about the particular instance with which this started, and make a more general statement about her "legal problems." And in this most recent proposal, I added material indicating Paul Watson actually did defend her illegal actions, twice, per your suggestions written above in that section. In what way are these counterproposals attempting to use "brute force?" I was under the impression that this is what negotiation is all about, is it not? I don't understand your response. Are you suggesting I simply capitulate? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it is possible that I didn't completely understand what you were saying in that talk page edit. What I gathered from the message is that you think that the other editors of this article should submit to your changes and discuss whether or not they should be allowed BEFORE removing them rather than remove them and THEN discuss whether or not they should be allowed. Typically, that's not the way things work, especially in potential WP:BLP situations. I'm not specifically targeting anything that you have said or did since the mediation started, neither am I suggesting that you capitulate. Trusilver 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't notice from the diffs I posted on the Edit warring noticeboard that the difficulty with these editors, or at least with Terjillja, significantly predates the current issue of Watson's wife. For some time before this happened, Terillja was reverting every edit I made on that article, even single words, without discussion. I don't know what the problem is, but it is apparently not limited to just this content issue. That is why I suggested we need an agreement for discussion before repeated reverts are undertaken (I think I posted 8 or 9 on the Edit warring noticeboard). Perhaps that is more a behavioral issue than a content issue, which is why I took it to the Edit warring noticeboard, where (I'm told) it is still pending.

At any rate, I've requested on Talk:Paul Watson that the other editors put forth specific words if they don't like mine, so we can see if with some modifications we can arrive at a mutually agreed sentence or two. Let's see what response that gets. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your decision here, and I hope I've justified your !neutral vote in my RfA; long time ago, but it's good to know I'm largely(?) getting it right. Of 1600+ blocks, a mere handful have been overturned. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I haven't had much chance to talk to you since then, but I've been quietly watching. If I had it to go back and do over again, you would have undoubtedly gotten my support. I often see you making difficult blocks and doing so both civilly and rationally. Trusilver 09:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to pages that are never patrolled? Are all pages reviewed at some point (or only secret pages)? Is there a policy or something in this regard, or is it just hit and miss? And what are you up to these days? Anything interesting? Do you create articles or mostly block and patrol? I'm leaving this one for you: Quiet Monkey Fight. I like the name of it and I can't bring myself to push for its deletion... I still have 14 questions left to get to 21. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some pages slip through the cracks. With as many new change patrollers as there are, every once in a while a bit of vandalism will go unchecked. I was looking at an article on the military readiness of the United States some time back and came to find that they US is backed up in Central America by 121,000 troops and Chuck Norris. As for what I do... I have an article that has been sitting in my sandbox that me and my daughter started working on a little while back, but she lost interest and I have been too bogged down in the other six hundred tasks that always seem to come before actual content contribution. One day though... Trusilver 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Quiet Monkey Fight, I'm going to watch it for a few days. I see no reason to delete it when it's only a few days old. I am not of the habit of arbitrarily speedy deleting A7 articles. If it is one I come across myself, I will tag it and let someone else delete it - just so that way there are at least two people involved in the decision. This one would easily get deleted if I were to tag it, but I have sourced it out and it seems to be very marginally notable. Maybe the author will come back and finish it, or possibly hell will freeze over and I can come up with some time in the next few days to do a little work on it myself. I haven't gotten to rescue an article in some time now. Trusilver 09:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article about that band that played in the Jabba the Hutt's Palace in Star Wars? --62.240.83.145 (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be unsuitable for Wikipedia. However, on the Star Wars wiki there is an article for that band which is named Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes[1]. Enjoy. Trusilver 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Google Book search [2] reveals the band has substantial independent coverage from several sources such as this one [3]. I think it could support an article no problem if there isn't one already on Figrin D'an or Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes. May the force be with you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I never realized there was an article there for that. Trusilver 17:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help but I was actually looking for this one. --62.240.83.145 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Tru seems very out of touch with the Star Wars universe. I think he needs a refresher of the movies! Although I was impressed he came up with the band name for the group playing at the Mos Eisley Cantina. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I googled it. Trusilver 23:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver, I apologize for writing (reproducing) this here -- I read your boxes above -- but it would be great if, whenever you return to the discussion page on Freida Pinto, you could give some attention to this specific point (actually the two of them):

|Trusilver, I can't help having the idea that you did not read what I wrote. I am absolutely not ignoring WP:V. The sentence to be included in the article is ""Pinto" is a name of Portuguese origin." That statement is fully sourced (please just check the sources above). A different question concerns relevance. I gave four arguments for relevance and you did not consider any one of them. Could you please answer this paragraph making a distinction between the two points?|

Thank you very much.Velho (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I believe that I have covered this on the talk page. If there is anything else you need, or you would like me to clarify something, please ask. Trusilver 06:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for the reverts on my page :) Saros136 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. They seem to be out to get you tonight. Would you like me to semi-protect your page? Trusilver 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not yet...we'll see how I survive. I did get an apology from a vandal, which was cool. The vandalism is ridiculous, but I'm having fun with my new Huggle! Saros136 (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Before I was an admin I would let my userpage be protected when the vandalism got particularly bad until I got a little bit of wisdom from User:DerHexer. He said that he would never protect his userpage because it was better to let the vandals mess with his page rather than mess with a legitimate article. Trusilver 18:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was peculiar. I wonder, though, what your rationale was for blocking the IP for 31 hours without the warning pyramid. One could imagine a ultra-conservative finding copyright abuse to be "pornographic" (re: the Muxtape edit), and, seeking clarification on Wikipedia norms, to have misunderstood talkpage editing in replacing my talkpage with their comment instead of merely adding to it. Thanks for reverting though. Regards, Skomorokh 06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle misidentified that IP as having already been given a lv4 warning when he had only actually been given a lv3. User:Gurch made a good application, but it has the occasional tendency to glitch when IP users have been given warnings out of order sometimes. However, I have a hard time believing that he could have accidentally blanked your talk page to post his edit. He was competent enough to edit a different article moments before. If he were to come back to his talk page and clarify, I would release him. Trusilver 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the talk page for Paul Watson. It is amazing to me that people can say they agree with a proposal in print and then immediately say they have not agreed. If you can resolve this, best of luck to you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand Ms. Sarita's comments about a distinction between agreement on the article vs agreement on the sentences proposed? I thought we are discussing the sentences proposed. I made no other changes to the article but to incorporate what I thought we had an agreement on. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the same impression. Trusilver 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to drag MEDCAB into this as it's apparently not the best avenue, and thanks for working on it. The user accounts Zare* and Zare2 received indefinite blocks due to the sockpuppet case, so i'm not sure when/if the person will return to answer your posed question. Perhaps in the short term you could clarify for me whether a band's bio as written by them, or their booking agent, or some other assigned agent, is considered a valid source to be cited, and also what future actions would be more correct in the future should this whole scenario repeat itself for a third run... ? Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean here [4] when you say "The manual of style very clearly outlines the treatment of a subject's nationality, and I feel there would need to be a very compelling reason to overturn that". It seems to me you're implying the article should stick with the recent change from the previously stable "Welsh born English" to just "English" because the MoS makes it very clear just "English" is correct. However, the manual of style states "Nationality – 1. In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. (Note: There is no consensus on how to define nationality for people from the United Kingdom, which encompasses constituent countries. For more information, please see the talk page and archives.)"[5]. This means that normally the MoS would determine Bale be defined as British (assuming he's a British rather than US citizen) but because he's from the United Kingdom and there isn't any consensus on how people from the UK should be defined, this rule doesn't apply. Can you clarify what you meant and why? Ha! (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get a chance to have a look at this? Ha! (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which one of these [6] [7] is "the official"?` --62.240.88.92 (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a counter offer on the Paul Watson talk page to Terrillja's recent offer. I'm giving up most of what I asked for previously. This is my last and final offer. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrillja has been editing Paul Watson but has not responded to my latest offer to resolve the dispute on the talk page there. Does this mean we are done with this effort? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the aircard on my laptop died a few days back and I've been without a connection since then. I will look into this tomorrow when I am more or less back online. Trusilver 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New developments: maybe we have an agreement. Hard to tell sometimes, but take a look. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as ChildofMidnight's day! For DYKs on the most artery-clogging foods on the planet, enjoy the Star of the day, ChildofMidnight! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

This was posted on my talk page. But I didn't want you to miss a moment of knowing that today is my day, so I've been kind enough to repost the good news here. You're welcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tru I haven't seen you around much since Wikipedia had a day in my honor. I understand you must be jealous, but I hope all is well otherwise. They say time heals all wounds. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trusilver,

This user has been vandalizing, getting in edit wars, and leaving nasty comments on user talk pages, even mine. He did this to user:Dougweller too. I have him his last warning. Just wanted to let an admin know. thanks, Creez34 (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver, I saw your name on the talk page of the Anna Anderson article and was hoping you could help. The same fanatic, ChatNoir, is terrorizing the article again. Though it's been totally prove Anderson was not Anastasia now, he insists on making it 'fair' to both sides. This, to me, is just as wrong as trying to say both sides won the Civil War. We have a right and a wrong answer. It's not a mystery. I have worked hard for a long time to track down valid sources for my statements on her, showing why she was never for real even before the DNA. I have tried to 'appease' him by adding quotes from those who supported her, but he keeps vandalizing what I put, changing the meaning of my quotes even though I have page number and book, he pokes in giving reasons why it's not verifiable, all the time filling it in with junk snippets marked only "Kurth" or "Rathlef" that certainly cannot be verified. He attacks certain sources of mine as 'liars' while using very questionable things himself- for example he discounts my Robert K. Massie for his Gleb Botkin and Harriet Rathlef (both people who wrote books about AA trying to help her cause in the 20s-30s) Though I thought my version was good, I would be willing to give up ALL quotes if it would make him stop adding insignificant and unproven nonsense by quoting such unknowns as 'Mrs. Grabitch' the ex boarding house owner's ex neighbor, etc. Please help any way you can, thanks.

...please note User:A Nobody/RfA, where you are invited to participate. Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr. Cabal. Wouldn't know where to turn if not for helpers like you. And if you'd care to learn to read English, I did not write a personal attack. This is in regards the Anna Anderson page, as I'm sure you know.

You guys really, really amuse me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mr. Cabal, did you ever get a gander at the Anna Anderson Anna Anderson talk page after you snootily removed my suggestions? And you lecture me about personal attacks! Well, for example, a personal attack might be me saying to you: Fool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver, that's the troll who is back on the AA talk page making ridiculous childish insults and accusations. Could you please tell him to stop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 04:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back to the most dreaded Anna Anderson article as soon as you can. For awhile Chat was just adding his pro Anna Anderson stuff, but now he's back to vandalizing what I've put and erasing entire passages though they are properly sourced, some by two different sources. He claims my sources are wrong or liars and all he does is sign everything "Harriet Rathelf" or "Peter Kurth" while I have used a wide variety of sources, books, page numbers and authors. I'm afraid just telling him to be nice and follow the rules isn't going to stop him. He is completely obsessed and lives in his own realm of reality where anything that isn't in Peter Kurth's book is a 'lie.' Since we know now AA wasn't Anastasia, we know now who was right and wrong all along. Since Rathelf is the one who went opposite of everyone else who turned out to be right, it's logically to conclude that she was the one who was wrong and/or lying, not the other sources. He is so hung up on this one woman he is completely blind to everything else. He cannot and will not objectively contribute to this article with his current behavoir. I am begging you to warn him to stop deleting and vandalizing, and please ban him if he doesn't stop, though he will only soon return under a new ID with a new IP. At the very least could you temporarily lock the article, or put up a message on its header that there is an edit war going on, or that the article is biased and not to be taken seriously? Please help. I am not going to have access to the computer for the first days of next week and I am afraid of how he's going to destroy it when I'm not there to check up on it. Thank you for any assitance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well well well, you made quite an appearance on my (potential) RfA nom. :) Truth be told if I could keep my collegial friends out of the nastiness it would be my preference to do so. That's one of the reasons I chose to ask Dougstech if he'd nom me. Please don't worry about little old me. I'll either be okay or I won't. :) But I hope you are well Tru, and I appreciate your very kind and generous comments. Stay cool and out of trouble. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, you know that I've long since quit caring. Wikipedia ceases to function as it once was. I remember when it was an amazing place, long before it became a hangout spot for power hungry little children who are trying to play king of the hill. Out of the little brain trust you have over there that seems to have taken a dislike to you, the only one that asks the real and relevant question is AllStar. He asked me how I got my mop. I've long since gone beyond the need to preserve my ego by lying about it - I got my mop by being political. I learned how the play the game and I played it, well. I steered away from everything even remotely controversial because I didnt' want it hitting me in the ass come RfA time. I had the perfect pedigree of coaches and nominators standing behind me. I got my mop by the most reliable method there is - the method by which about 95% of the current admins did - I played the game. The unfortunate part of the matter is that the people that should be administrators, the ones that do the right thing and say to hell with the potential backlash later, can't get the mop. Trusilver 07:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(addressed to Trusilver) - I have been sitting out the RfA, and don't see any need to participate in that until and unless it becomes an active nomination. But two recent comments by you there[8][9] are grossly inappropriate for anyone in any forum, much less an administrator opining about nonadministrators who choose to participate in Wikipedia process. You have made very clear that you support CoM, which is fine. Please confine yourself to that, and tone down the insults and accusations against other editors. I cannot see any good coming of that. You should seriously consider removing or refactoring the comments you have already left. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice WD, I do actually appreciate it. I've had a good time here on Wikipedia, It's been an amazing few years. I think that the wisest person I have ever met to sum up Wikipedia is my daughter (that's not just parental bias, it's the actual truth) She edited with me for a couple months, an amazing thing, I thought, for a girl who was thirteen at the time. Then abruptly, she stopped editing. I asked her if she wanted to work on an article with me, she said no. When I asked why, she said: "Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others." It took me a long time to see that she was right. My Wikicareer is down to its last few gasps, I'm no longer afraid to say it like it is. But thank you WD, and may you keep fighting the good fight (and keep telilng people what you think, too.) Trusilver 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the refreshingly kind reaponse. Anyone who's been around here or anywhere long enough knows the potential to misinterpret things when the flaming starts. If people are getting you down why not spend time doing some things that make you happy (if you aren't already)? Wikipedia is still more civil than most other sites on the web. And there are still vast reaches of article space that are underserved: microbreweries, historical monarchs, newly discovered insects, musical performance techniques, historic defunct consumer brands. There are trolls and vandals to fight there, only they stick out and it's a lot easier to tell who the good guys are when it's a subject matter that is not beset by politics or anybody's self-interest. Wikidemon (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Trusilver, honestly! You people do not have a sense of humor, nor a very thick skin for warranted criticism. I've received your warning about <<personal attacks>>, and, as predicted, you come at me leveling this charge yet again. May I ask in as gentlemanly fashion as possible, what specifically did I write this time that has you so enraged? Are you thinking that somehow you are protecting aggiebean? I am aware that the Anna Anderwson page is entirely her domain, and I have no doubt she's badgered you with her typical exaggerated complaints. And you people knew it was me when I thought I was disguised with only an IP number....All I can say to you Trusilver is that you may do what you will. It's clearly your playground, not mine, and I'm obviously not welcome. This whole Wikipedia ordeal was a barely tolerable diversion for me; most of you people are all the same, cyberautocrats, and I'm fed up being made to feel like a criminal--for what? Speaking my mind? And as is plain, I attack no one. For if I did inadvertently write too bluntly I would certainly apologize... but no, apology is not good enough for you. Attack is assault, it is brutal, it is violent and deplorable. Yet you and others, and I know exactly whom, have decided to target me and label me as an attacker. I have abandoned Wikipedia once already, for its air of stupidity and arrogance, lack of tolerance and its insufferable do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude. Others besides me ought perhaps to amend their behaviour as well. You may on this ocassion take that as a <<personal attack>> all you like!

• RevAntonio (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberautocrats, that's an absolutely hilarious term that I must save for future use. But that aside, you seem to have this idea that I favor one faction in the Anna Anderson article over another. I do not. If every self-proclaimed expert on Anna Anderson jumped off a bridge tomorrow, I would not feel terribly bad about it.... in fact, I would be willing to provide maps to the nearest one. I couldn't care less about the article, I'm not there to rehab it, I'm there to keep the peace on an article that has had a long-term history of incivility and edit warring. You can make whatever comments you wish. If they are level-headed and helpful to the article, fantastic. If you continue to be abusive and disruptive, then we will go down that road as well. Trusilver 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have indicated, you are absolutely full of it. Perhaps you removed some early remarks that I made for Anna Anderson, thinking I might be a shit-disturber. But now I see what is happening there, and see it is even worse than I at first thought. Lord only knows why I go back to the discussion--perhaps I am of the same mind as aggiebean and the few others who monopolize that page: to see it accurate and not be fought over. As for you, well, it is clearly your pejorative to play G-d, but I'll tell you right now you're no good at it even as a joke.

19:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you were listed in the Coaches for reconfirmation section of the admin coaching status page. Could you please update your status, and if you are still interested, drop me a note on my talk page? Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC) This message was delivered semi-automatically by AutoWikiBrowser.[reply]

My apologies, I see you are not a coach. Sorry, Genius101^Guestbook 22:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trusilver,

I see that some users have menu bars on their main pages, that direct you to a talk page, personal sandbox, exc. I was wondering, how do you do that. Thanks Creez34 (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Creez, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. I have quite a few extra buttons on my menu bar that aren't normally there. Some of them are administrator functions, and some of them involve utilities that I find useful which are running through my monobook.js page. Do you happen to know in particular what it is you are looking for? Trusilver 05:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for late reply, but what I meant is, some users have have these menu bars on their pages that link to their Talk Page, main page, sandbox, like this user: User:Until It Sleeps Creez34 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tru, as you know I'm as far from a techno-head as one can get. So, I've noted all activity on my favorite talk pages has ceased since I last commented on them. Is it possible I'm committing a weird error and getting old versions of the pages? I know my ban is lifted, though I plan on following my advice... do let me know. Knowing how busy you are, I am grateful for an answer.
• Nine bows to you. RevAntonio (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you are looking at an old version unless you are intentionally cacheing old pages on your computer. (If you are not aware that you are doing such, it's unlikely you are) If you are in doubt, just click on the history tab and that will tell you for sure whether or not there have been any more recent edits. Trusilver 05:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. Forgive me for not thanking you for above advice. Having had no chance to prove I've learned my lesson, and having seen your communication to user Lisa about the Noahide page, I'd like to ask something: please, please do not go around communicating to people "the issues" you claim to have about me. Your issues with me are with me alone. I appreciate the way you stood up to Lisa and defended my posts at Noachide. And as I've said, I'm disciplining myself so as not to be accused and kicked off here because I truly believe in Wikipedia. But now, Lisa is going to make sure I keep off the Noahide page for good: she has threatened me with my own past, and has made it clear she'll act on it. That's all I need, another shiner from someone at Wikipedia!
• RevAntonio (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC
• Trusilver, this user Lisa at the Noahidism page is about ready to give me a nosebleed. I'm trying, through illness and bereavement, to prepare sources for my assertions, as a way of improving that whole scene, and I'm urging you to look at that discussion as it is now, because I know Lisa has been following me about, erasing my comments on Noahidism and the Seven Laws of Noah. I'm asking for your help, because she is cleverly amassing weapons to get me banned and I've done nothing to deserve that again. Lisa has demanded an ultimatum that I giver her proof--that's been done, but it isn't enough for her--or, she says, "leave us alone." Trusilver, THAT IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY HER PAGE and I don't see anyone else complaining about the issues I've raised. You communicated this directly to her already, so she's going to ignore you and keep after me. I won't have it. And I turn to you for assistance in this before it gets bush-whacked by Lisa.
• RevAntonio (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• When you warned Lisa about her doings at Noahidism, were you refering to me when you said that "fringe" people "rant"? That is true, they do rant, and sometimes I do too. Where that topic is concerned, I'm not "fringe" anything. I do see your point when you wrote that. But please, please, for the second time I tell you: do not use me as your personal Judas goat here. Don't you think that even I, a crazy, ill, tired old man, deserve some respect? And also, another honest query of you, do you really think it's necessary to apply one standard to me and a different standard to all others? You've shown your double-standard proclivity in the message to Lisa. Please don't do that to yourself or to me. We both deserve respect. Will you learn, as I've tried to do, to show the proper respect?
• RevAntonio (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I feel that it is necessary to apply one standard to you and a different to others? In a word: Yes. From the beginning, every impression I've had with you has been negative. I always respect everyone until they say or do something to lose that respect. If you want it back, then continue editing within the scope and the policies of Wikipedia. The one thing that puts me in a foul mood is when I feel that I have to become a babysitter around here. 99% of editors are able to follow the rules with either no or very little guidance from the community as a whole. This is understandable (not condonable, but understandable) to a certain point. Over the years I have come to learn that the more knowledge someone has about a particular subject, the less inclined they are to accept the criticism or alternate viewpoints of someone else on that article. This often turns into a train wreck when you have two people who are both experts on a subject, though with radically differing viewpoints. (obviously, that's what is happening with you and User:Lisa) As far as your dispute on Noahidism goes, I'm hands off of that unless the edit warring, harassment or abusive behavior starts. Conflict is always going to exist on Wikipedia because no two people think the same thing about everything. You have had a good couple days, no personal attacks, nothing disruptive. The double standard will go away by itself when I no longer see the need to constantly check up to make sure you are playing well with others. Keep the following in mind as well: Having to clean up the Anna Anderson page in particular is probably my least favorite activity around here, I don't do it because I think it's fun, I do it because I somehow was thrust into that position a couple years back. Trusilver 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Trusilver, I have offered you an apology at Talk: Anna Anderson and I offer it here too. The apology over there explains it all, please read it, you'll like it... in fact, I think you've seen it already. But one thing I'll repeat here is that yes, I had such a bad beginning here that there is reason to watch me, and distrust me. My history has proved that out, and I'm all about history. Now, for some good news: if ever you have time, will you look at the work I've done at Claddagh ring? It shows what I can do, little though it may be.
• RevAntonio (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ...because I'm not actually skilled at this sort of thing at all. I want you to look at the personal attack made upon me, my credentials and my religion by aggiebean at Talk: Anna Anderson, after I submitted some suggestions in good faith...and she snuck it in under your latest post so it wouldn't be detected right away. Did you not instruct that every post be started there under "new section"? Double standard or no, I am requesting you ban aggiebean as you did me. She has a history like mine, and I'm not going to be hoodwinked that she's not an attacker or disruptive. Your words, not mine: "foul". That is what you said about babysitting immature editors. Aggiebean is one, now prove you can stretch beyond me, stop making it look like you're favoring her, and ban her for her RevAntonio-style abuses.
• RevAntonio (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not 'sneak in', I was only answering the post under the proper post that it applied to, instead of at the end where it wouldn't make as much sense. I am not attacking anyone, he just doesn't like me because I disagree with him and his position on the subject of AA and how the article should be done. I am not finneganw, I am a woman from the US and he is a man from a different country. I do however believe the "Rev" to be a sockpuppet of another disruptive user with the same exact pattern of behavior going back several years on many different websites and forums. I have witnessed this myself with much personal experience. I am a mod on other forums and I have found out the hard way that while an IP can be bounced or covered up, nothing changes the distinct personality and behavior patterns of certain individuals who give themselves away every time. RevAntonio's attitude and disruption are not an asset to any site, subject or article.Aggiebean (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that RevAntonio is sadly up to his old tricks again stirring the pot at Talk: Anna Anderson. Can something be done please? Thanks! Finneganw (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.69.68 (talk) [reply]

Yes, it's the same old story, same old song and dance, again.Aggiebean (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Trusilver, you're in for a headache as soon as you see what the cowardly lion finneganw has FALSELY reported about me and my activities at Talk: Anna Anderson. I'm beginning to suspect finneganw and aggiebean are one and the same person... but worse, this user Lisa Talk: Noahidism seems a genuine albeit narrow person. She's chomping at the bit; however, I am done with a page that is not "patroled", where she can reign as fulsomely as she desires. One thing I ask now is that you please read what is actually there at the Anna page. I'm doing nothing except trying to talk sense to them... and you know this, they saw your post there and it infuriated them. And I suppose you ought to know they are disobeying protocol there and not starting new headings. They are waiting to see if I'll remove their rotten comments. It won't work. By the way, do you also get annoyed by "bulleted" entries? I do this because it helps my eyes when reading a discussion page and I think it helps separate my message for easy reading. I'll stop if it is considered attacking or disrupting.... :)
• RevAntonio (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining to RevAntonio what original research means on Wikipedia? I just reverted this diff, but as you probably know, I'm not allowed to revert an edit on that page more than once a day. Maybe he'll listen to you; he certainly won't listen to me. -Lisa (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm taking your advice, and I'm not going to reply to him any more on talk pages, so long as it's just him talking. But when he edits an actual article to insert OR like that, someone needs to step in. -Lisa (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...you use another administrator for this. i am invoking the right to vanish. if i were to edit, it'd be like one of the public and my ip is well-known here. but i want to take my user name revantonio out of the mud. i want all posts etc. judiciously and courteously deleted. i value my contribution to Claddagh ring and also to Noahidism, but if they have to go too, so be it. i'll be watching for your answer/help in vanishing. you know me, you decide. i'm vanishing anyway. 75.21.116.175 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only have about ten minutes before I am going to be on a flight, but I want you to read over WP:RTV carefully and get an understanding of what your right to vanish is and isn't. If you are still intent on vanishing, then say so again on my talk page and I will delete your user page and talk page when I am on the ground again. Trusilver 19:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• my friend, trust me, i felt lucky to find that page of salvation. i have read it again and again. what i assure you is i do not want a fresh start, and i cannot follow those crazy instructions to 'vanish myself'... i'm getting too ill to sit forever at the pc. vanishing revantonio for good was what i'd wanted once before; an arrogant admin. advised me 'to walk away'. so now: trusilver, i invoke the right to vanish. [that means, i presume, removal of all RevAntonio stuff, ip references to me as well as 'ip edits'.] you know me trusilver, and i'm making a humble get-away because i know what all this has cost people. but let me say this to you in two parts: you are as hot-headed as i am but you are fair and answer well. i'm sorry all this occurred, and that you lost all respect for me, that was my doing. i want you to know this is my act of true penitence, because nothing else will do it!! i wanted to be arrogant, let my passions fly here, and it was wrong. now no one trusts or repsects me. what good can i now bring wikipedia?
• 75.21.116.175 (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, a lot of people would just love to have all their old embarrassing posts and quotes erased, along with their IPs, however, I doubt it works that way. The talk page can go, but edits to articles and talk pages become a matter of recorded history forever, for all of us. He's probably frantic because he must have made an entry logged out and somewhere his IP can link him to one of his socks.Aggiebean (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have approached someone called Protonk, who seems wise and apt. I have asked him to vanish me because I know you're busy and I want this done ASAP. If you get to it before him, ok, but I did ask him if he'd contact you if necessary about it. I'M ASKING ANYONE I CONTACT NOW TO PLEASE RESPOND AT MY TALK PAGE FOR AS LONG AS IT'S THERE, PLEASE DO SO. I'm too ill to be flying around here, trying to recall where the hell my questions are. Either way, abientot! RevAntonio (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted his user page and talk page under RTV. I hope that he understands what RTV means, at least enough to stop editing. I don't know anything about the past issues that you seem to be dealing with here but my normal protocol is to honor RTV requests for non-blocked users until they do something to warrant revoking it. If he starts editing again or returns under another name, you have my consent to revert my deletion of both pages. If there is something big here floating under the waves that I missed, let me know on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely acceptable. I have no reason whatsoever to object to his RTV, and especially since he has left personal information in his posts in the past, I might go so far as to suggest it be oversighted, but only if he was terribly concerned about it. Trusilver 08:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I didn't know if there was some sordid backstory. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly User:RevAntonio and User:ChatNoir24 are causing disruption again. They are targeting their poor behaviour at User:Aggiebean. I would ask that you intervene to stop both culprits. You will recall that User:RevAntonio was banned for poor behaviour recently. He is trying to invent a case for User:Aggiebean to be banned for supposedly behaving in the same manner as he did when he was banned. This is not the case. I believe he is doing this deliberately to cause further problems. It is highly possible and likely that User:RevAntonio and User:ChatNoir24 are one and the same. They both write in the same style and have caused massive problems resulting in edit war over an extended period. Both are fanatical Anna Anderson is Anastasia supporters. Of course such a stance has been totally disproven and they have been informed of this. I believe they have no interest in reality and are just out to cause substantial problems at wikipedia. Both have been banned from other internet sites dealing with the same topics. ChatNoir24 goes on with the same sort of bizarre behaviour. It can be seen at the amazon.com site dealing with Peter Kurth's book on Anderson where he openly attacks others. It has also occurred on the Alexander Palace website. He is known for sending vile messages. His last message on the Anderson discussion page displays the perverse pleasure he obtains in taunting others. I would hope you will intervene and put a stop to both of these culprits. Finneganw (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's back, this time vandalizing the discussion history. He's never going to stop as long as he's allowed on this site.Aggiebean (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tru, you are supervising some of the strangest disputes I've seen. I tried reading the discussion and following along, but my head almost exploded. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you wish you had been given the mop so you could enjoy this kind of fun? Trusilver 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can promise you that I would not be meditating that dispute. I don't even understand what it's about and I don't think I want to know. So I think it's fair to say that you are a far, far better Admin than I would ever be. :) But I do have questions about your sanity. Enjoy your weekend. On Wikipedia we can always vanish and return, sometimes against our "will". ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite his invocation of his right to vanish, RevAntonio (now posting as 75.21.116.175) is continuing his trolling of the Noahidism page unabated ([10]). It appears to me that his invocation of RTV was merely an attempt to game the system. Is there anything that can be done about him? -Lisa (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is why he wanted all his IPs deleted, so they couldn't trace him to his unsavory activities and his socks, because he has done the same thing under other names, and numbers. I can't believe the mods actually covered for him after all he's done, he deserves to be shown, IP and all, for what he's done. If he gets away with it, it's not fair to others whose embarrassing posts and IPs remain forever. He's never going to stop, and it's not hard to tell it's him, regardless of name or IP.Aggiebean (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I want to say that the IP listed by Lisa IS the same one used by RevAntonio, I checked it before when he was posting and it's the same one that traces from Rockford, IL (whether or not he's actually there) So it IS him. Here is proof in a post from the AA page: i have taken leave of this wretched page and you stubborn people who have trusilver's protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.116.175 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Aggiebean (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver, RevAntonio (now posting as 75.21.115.37) is back yet again ([11]). He also posted on the Anna Anderson talk page ([12]) claiming that he can't be stopped because "This is America and this is a Democracy". -Lisa (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I blocked the entire IP range his is editing from this time. I hate doing that because it presents the possibility of preventing actual useful editors from posting, but the range was reasonably small and if it did happen to block another contributing editor, I will deal with the problem if it comes up. Trusilver 18:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's back, and this time he's vandalizing the talk page! He's using IP 75.21.98.62 and erasing comments by finneganw and myself and maybe others. I tried undoing the changes but it didn't work. He is completely irrational and outrageous and needs to be stopped permantently. This is not a personal attack, this is the truth. It has gone way too far. Something is serioulsy wrong with the person and he should not be permitted to do anything on this site.Aggiebean (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I've been very busy lately. I read over the contributions made by the User:RevAntonio editing under an IP address and have decided that his disruption is enough to warrant a more lengthy block. I blocked him for thirty days this time. If you suspect he is editing again, please pass the IP along to me and I will block that was if necessary. Trusilver 19:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver I am placing this hear to bring to your attention what appears to be collusion between User:67.119.135.252 / User: ChatNoir24 and the recently banned User:RevAntonio. It comes from the User talk:67.119.135.252 in entirety. Please note the very last entry where User:RevAntonio on 3 May 2009 encourages User:67.119.135.252 / User: ChatNoir24 what to do with the Anna Anderson page. A close examination of the Anna Anderson discussion page shows a very long history by ChatNoir of making alterations to the page, including verified quotes, to push a proven incorrect agenda. I am concerned that when the current block on editing is lifted from the Anna Anderson page that similar disruptive edits will again occur on a regular basis. I would like to think the basis for the edit war will cease. I believe this has been caused mainly by User:67.119.135.252 / User: ChatNoir24 and the recently banned User:RevAntonio. Would you please look into this? Thanks in advance. Finneganw 09:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Trusilvr meant to put the right date in the above. It is meant to be May not April. Finneganw 19:33, 24 May 2009[reply]

User talk:67.119.135.252 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] April 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Anna Anderson, you will be blocked from editing. I'm not sure what your deal exactly is. You have had a long term habit of removing and refactoring other people's talk page comments on this article. Any further deliberate removal of content will result in a block. Trusilver 22:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. No, I do NOT have a long term habit of removing and refactoring other people's talk page comments on this article. The only comments I have removed, are my own! This page was getting ridiculously long, and I helped shorten it. ChatNoir.

We do not shorten pages, we archive them. If you do not know how to do this, you ask others for help. Trusilver 18:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC) OK, sorry for the disruption, but when Bookworm complained about the lenght of this discussion, I felt the best I could do, was to minimize the volume by at least cancelling my own posts which I doubt anyone read anyway.

No problem. I'm going to chop it down and archive the page tonight. It definitely HAS grown to the point of being cumbersome. Trusilver 19:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( Finneganw (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC) ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] A short hello Hello! I've read with lively interest your debates on Anna's talk page. What a war was waged there! And I see you had your run-in with Trusilver as did I. The lesson I have learned is to pretend to be Mr. Spock first, think three times before writing anything, then 9 times out of 10 don't write anything. I think we may have caught them with their barn doors open: aggiebean bloody favoritism anyone? But I think users/editors like us can make Wikipedia honest, make it mean something again, make it true wiki spirit. By the bye, I do not believe the article-vandalization accusations against you. That charge was levelled at me by finneganw, and he threatened me with banishment when he had no power or authority to do so. Actually, I did inadvertently "vandalize" the Anna page long ago, when I removed Prince Cristoph's quotes, whomever quoted him had a too-obsessive agenda. Well, cheers and good luck getting back there. You are familiar with my suggestion about what should be done to the Anna page?RevAntonio (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Trusilver I thought I would draw your attention to more information you may not be aware about the ongoing situation with ChatNoir. The following information comes from

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2GJG5POIGGEB4/ref=cm_cr_pr_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0316507172&nodeID=#wasThisHelpful

where he appears as one 'James A. Fraser' yet again commenting on anybody who wishes to doubt Peter Kurth and his work on Anna Anderson. He left the following message where a reviewer exposed Anderson as being Catholic and not Russian Orthodox as the real Anastasia was. He clearly identifies himself as ChatNoir:

The explanation seems very simple: Alexander Tschaikowski (most likely an alias for Stanislav Mishkewich) was catholic. Anna Anderson said she wanted him to marry her so their child could be "legal". Because her new husband was catholic, she felt that she had to change religion for his sake, like the tsarina did for the tsar. From her telling about the ceremony, it seems to have been only an ordinary mass and no wedding. But she was made believe it was a wedding in order to pacify her. ChatNoir

Today he has already altered the Anna Anderson page trying to reference incorrect information without placing any complete details for tracing as required. The author is always Kurth and when he is sprung he then replaces it with Rathlef. Sadly ChatNoir is a rabid 'Anna Anderson is Anastasia supporter' even though she has been well and truly proven to be an imposter through extensive DNA reports in numerous countries in different scientific laboratories. Today he is using an ISP that starts with 66. He has never made any constructive attempts to solve the problems he creates on the page. I thought you should have this update. Finneganw 09:40, 25 May 2009

On no, I was so afraid this was going to happen once it was opened. He uses so many names and IPs and he is obsessed. I agree about the Fraser, and also he's used the name AVSpeicher and both are tied to Kurth on other sites I have seen. In fact I found one where someone posting as Fraser actually signed his name PK I will try to find it. You are absolutely right, Finneganw, he gives just Kurth, usually not even a page number, as a source or just Harriet Rathlef. Since most of Kurth's book is based on Rathlef's writings, and Rathlef's writings run contrary to all other sources, ones that turned out to be right, it's plain to see that she was not a reliable source and should not be used in the article, especially not just adding any old junk and putting her name on it and calling it a source. Chat and all his aliases need to know that none of this matters and none of it will ever make her Anastasia and nobody cares. Now that we have our factual proof, we can dispense with all that and only give a basic outline of the story and then the scientific proof. Thank you finneganw for staying on top of this and please Trusilver when you get back take a look and see what a problem this is and how this person we speak of should not be contributing to the article due to his obsession and personal emotional attachment to the case, as well as vandalism, trolling, and inproper sourcing. Thank you.Aggiebean (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had a lot of time to do anything today, but I'm going to go through all the evidence here and see if I have enough to start a checkuser investigation. Give me a day or so to compile all the possible users and IP addresses and I will get back to you. Trusilver 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Trusilver. He is back once again vandalising the Anna Anderson page pushing his highly inaccurate POV opinions using the ChatNoir24 guise and making changes using unsubstantiated references always with the Kurth book without any page numbers. He knows this is not acceptable and is blatantly abusing the system. I believe he needs some sort of formal warning as he is destructive. Finneganw 22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I have an explanation to why Finneganw immediately erases my sourced editings on the Anna Anderson page? It seems like blatant vandalism to me. Thank you.ChatNoir24 (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would let you know Trusilver that ChatNoir24, this time under one of his many guises as 67.119.135.252, is back putting in grossly inaccurate information on the Anna Anderson page. He always uses Kurth and Kurth's source Rathlef to try to back up his inaccuracies. He has now placed in page numbers which I shall check. Basically it doesn't matter what he puts in from Kurth as the whole book is inaccurate. He constantly plays the same bizarre games. Both Aggiebean and Lisa are now on to him. He simply doesn't get the message and needs to be dealt with. If you examine the very long case history of disruption on the Anna Anderson page and disussion pages he is constantly causing major issues. It is very revealing to note that he has made no attempt to reply to my suggestion that the page needs simplifying. He is not interested in that. All he wants to do is push his false agenda. He cannot find other sources apart from the discredited Kurth as nobody else supports his agenda of Anna Anderson being Grand Duchess Anastasia. A close examination in the archives will reveal ChatNoir signing as pk, Peter Kurth. I would tend to think that ChatNoir is in fact Peter Kurth who cannot cope with his inaccurate book being exposed as fraudulent nonsense. The whole situation has been exposed and pushing an inaccurate agenda surely has no place on wikipedia. I have come to the conclusion that he needs to be banned in all his different guises. He has already been banned from other internet sites for the same behaviour. You may not be aware that Peter Kurth was arrested in the United Kingdom after air rage on flight from the United States. He also had passport issues and was for a time imprisoned. There is a considerable history of bizarre behaviour. Aggiebean is also aware of this situation. I would request that the article be locked once more. Thanks for your assistance. Finneganw 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I have NEVER used another name than Chat Noir. And I am NOT Peter Kurth. I simply cannot understand this constant whining about who I am. And remember, NO MATTER who Anna Anderson was, the story about her does not change, no matter how much anybody tries. I have just completed all the citations missing with author and page number, and immediately, they are being removed. Vandalism, anyone? As for simplifying the page, yes, that could be done easily by cutting out all the hearsay and the silly excerpts from Vorres' book. But if I did that, there would be no end to the whining already going on. Someone is just too afraid of the truth. ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver, please check ChatNoir24 's page where he states he doesn't care if he is banned from wikipedia. I believe there is ample evidence of his rampant sock puppetry and continued POV vandalism and belligerence. He is unable to understand what the truth is and is completely illogical when he asks for credible sources such as the Vorres' authorised biography of the last Tsar of Russia's sister, Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna to be removed which attack Anna Anderson as a fraud. Vorres was given complete legal authority to use interviews she gave him in the biography. ChatNoir24 is though quite happy to attack Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna and other real historical figures using completely false information which he credits to her and others in Peter Kurth's fabricated book. At no time did Grand Duchess Olga ever speak to Kurth. Kurth relies on fabricated hearsay from Anna Anderson supporters as his 'sources'. They have all been proven to be fellow con artists and tellers of mistruths. I believe it is now time to remove all references to Kurth's completely discredited book from the Anna Anderson page as it is not usual at wikipedia for factually incorrect books to be used as sources in wikipedia articles. If ChatNoir24 can find credible sources that is a different matter. He will be hard pressed to do this though as they do not exist. This has gone on way too long and needs to stop. I would like to see this all sorted out. I know I am not alone in this. Thanks for your assistance. Finneganw 5:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Trusilver would you please deal with ChatNoir24 and his sock puppets. He is hell bent on causing problems on the Anna Anderson page. His irrational rants and use of highly inaccurate discredited sources should be noted. This has been going on for very long period of time. Thanks for your assistance. Finneganw 0:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Trusilver, you have gone too far while I have been banned, but here I am as you see. You are not God Almighty and I hope this teaches you a lesson about sportsmanship. The only reason I post here is to warn you that I'm preparing some kind of arbitration request here. You have aided and abetted aggiebean and finneganw in their quest to assassinate my character. As I have already publicized, I am myself and no other. I used IP addresses as signatures in the past, but what you have been doing is despicable. You know how to track where my IP's originate, and you have personal information regarding me. I'm not wasting time other than monitoring and gathering evidence of what you all have been doing. I hope you're better at hiding this gross indecency against me than you are at range-blocking! Most Reverend Antonio Hernandez and none other!75.21.153.2 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver the informtion below was left on the Anna Anderson discussion page. Finneganw 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here I am, Most Reverend Antonio Hernandez. I see my ideas have been stolen [the idea to either delete or shorten the page]-- and now it seems I'm not only ChatNoir but also Peter Kurth. Give this to Trusilver on a platter: in collusion with aggiefinneganwbean, Trusilver is engaging in WikiHounding. A report contra all of you is in preparation right now. And by the way, you should all read my talk message at 75.21.115.37 because that's me too. My IP fluctuates because I have internet service as a business, and that is what business IP addresses do: I do not hide myself and change names like you all love to do. I am Antonio Hernandez, and you are a bunch of mean, vicious, terrorizing children. Do your tracing, Trusilver, you'll find I've vandalized nothing. And keep covering for these others, because you'll be in very hot water soon enough.75.21.153.2 (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusiliver the information below was left on my discussion page from the Troll. Finneganw 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• finneganw, you will cease accusing me of being Peter Kurth, ChatNoir and the Easter Bunny. I am who I am and none other. You children on the other hand are being very naughty. I'm preparing to deal with you via Wikipedia, you can understand that, can't you? I have no agendas, did no vandalizing and I certainly have never done the disgusting things you have been doing during my banishment. As I said to Trusilver, you'd better be good at defending yourselves, better than you are at getting people banned. Archbishop Antonio Hernandez and none other. 75.21.153.2 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver the information below was left on Aggibean's discussion page from the Troll. Finneganw 23:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• This is a courtesy and a warning. You have been attempting to assassinate my character here. Be prepared, because YOU are the one who is going to be dealt with, via Wikipedia under their non-hounding rules. How do you think it makes others feel, being ripped apart... but then you do not care, you are a child. What you have been doing is repulsive, and I'm documenting it all for arbitration or whatever these people call it. And I suggest you cease and desist from your blatant and uncontrolled name-calling. I hope you can defend better than you try to get people banned! ~Abp. Antonio Hernandez AND NONE OTHER. 75.21.153.2 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"RevAntonio" has indeed returned, threatening us all, soon after the deletion of his sockpuppet "ChatNoir24". After having argued he was a Buddhist monk, he now claims to be an archbishop. He changes names and IPs but never rhetoric or behavioral patterns. It is always the same person, using different IPs and names. Finneganw and I and others have noticed this for years, he's done it here and other places and there is really no question about it. The temper and attitude he displays are just like those which got his original identity arrested after causing altercations on a flight from NY to London. His ego and his obsession will never allow him to accept the reality that Anderson has been proven an imposter and this is why he is not a good candidate to edit the article on the subject. In addition to that of course is his over the top behavior, continuous trolling and abuse of other members and his threats that he will never be stopped. This person is hopeless and will never behave properly and must be rangeblocked on all his IP sources. Thank you for your time and consideration.Aggiebean (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I need help from an experienced Wikipedian, and I saw your name over at WP:ADOPT.

I need your advice concerning WP:WPOOK, which I've been coordinating. The set of pages the project concerns is listed at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Projected outline, and has grown to about 500 articles in the encyclopedia.

The goals of the WikiProject are:

1. Increase awareness of readers of the existence of the outlines on Wikipedia
2. Complete the existing outlines
3. Create an outline for every subject that is exensive enough to benefit from having an outline (core subjects and major or extensive fields). There are thousands of these.
4. Recruit as many editors to work on these as possible (we need thousands of editors working on these)
5. Surpass portals in number by the end of the summer, and leave them in the dust by the end of the year
6. Get the major outline subject areas displayed on the Main Page (in place of or in addition to the portal links at the top of the page)
7. Increase the OOK to higher quality than Britannica's Outline of Knowledge (published in its Propaedia volume).

I was hoping you could comment on how to achieve the goals above.

Also I'm interested in every possible way of reaching readers and editors of Wikipedia. How can I get the most eyes and typing fingers on Wikipedia's outlines? Contacting editors directly without a reason relevant to them is spam, which I'd like to avoid. There are 75,000 regular editors on Wikipedia, and I want to contact all of them. So how do I do it? Directly or indirectly, I don't care which, piecemeal or all-at-once, all methods are fine with me. But I've got to find ways. I need your help.

I would also like to know how to find or attract editors to create new outlines. And I need advice on finding editors to help write the new outline article mentioned above (it needs to be fleshed out, completely referenced, and brought to featured article status).

Can you recommend anyone in particular who might be interested in sinking their teeth into a project like this? Or ways to reach groups of editors? Or ways to reach all editors? I welcome any and all advice you might have.

I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 03:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver I think it is important for you to realise that RevAntonio and ChatNoir24 are one and the same. Would you please refer this to a higher level at Wikipedia as the constant cause of the edit war is ChatNoir24. It is very easy to work out. Note when RevAntonio is not making entries ChatNoir24 his alter ego is. He continues to try to reedit using completely inaccurate information that has been totally discredited. The 'sources' are always the same ones - Peter Kurth and the 'sources' Kurth used Botkin and Rathlef. There are no other sources that agree with the POV agenda he continues to push. RevAntonio/ChatNoir24 is completely obsessed and cannot accept the fact that Anna Anderson has been exposed. Wikipedia prides itself on accuracy. RevAntonio/ChatNoir24 is hell bent on abusing this. A very long history going back years is archived and proves this to be the case. I hope you will deal this or refer it to someone who will as it is more than high time this all stopped. Finneganw 23:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And I think it is just as important for all to know that Finnewanw is lying through his teeth. He is also accusing me of using sources that are, in his opinion, and in his opinion only, "discredited." In spite of that, he cannot find a single thing in Kurth's book that he can discredit. As for using sources, I see that Aggiebean is pushing her old book "In Angesicht der Revolution" withhout being able to produce a single quote, nor a page number. She is also quoting three books saying that the work of Professor Reche was discredited, still she cannot produce a single page number. I don't think that the Oberlandesgericht of Hamburg would have employed Professor Reche as their expert witness if his work was not up to snuff. ChatNoir24 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finneganw has recently posted the following after I made comments (s)he disagreed with.

"Thought you would like to know that the obsessive Ferrymansdaughter has returned. That contributor was banned for multiple disruption and gross inaccuracies due to pushing a bizarre Anderson is Anatasia agenda over an extended period at the Alexander Palace discussion board. Finneganw 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)"

and

"It should be noted that Ferrymansdaughter was banned for extensive distortion of fact and abuse of contributors at the Alexander Palace discussion board due to a failure to accept proven historical fact. His/her agenda is to push Anderson was Anastasia. That is unacceptable. Wikipedia does not accept pushing proven discredited information. --Finneganw 14:34, 2 June2009 (UTC)"

It seems to me that this falls into the category of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". I posted on the AP for a period of a few months and most certainly was NOT banned, much less for distortion and abuse. This is a complete and utter fabrication. I closed my account at the AP due to the comments directed at Richard Schweitzer, Gleb Botkin's son in law, after he took time to discuss his personal knowledge of AA. I felt he was treated unfairly and I e mailed their moderator to explain my decision. Now I am being subjected to an unwarranted and personal attack simply because I don't agree with Finneganw and Aggiebean about certain aspects of this case.

I appreciate that the story of Anna Anderson causes strong emotions but I do not believe there is any reason for this behaviour. I have asked Finneganw three times to delete his/her comments but to date I have merely been sneered at. Before I formalise this by going to dispute resolution, I would like to know if there is any other action that can be taken to stop this happening again and would also like to know if the comments can be removed. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is not at all true and is a sign of a purveyor of extreme mistruths. It should be noted that Richard Schweitzer was banned from the Alexander Palace discussion board by the Forum Administrator for causing massive disruption, factually fraudulent behaviour and abusing grotesquely anybody who dared to question his highly ignorant and inaccurate viewpoints. Please see the Anna Anderson discussion page for a copy of what the Forum Administrator wrote when he banned Schweitzer. Even now Ferrymansdaughter's is trying to cover up for his own appalling behaviour and now her own. Since coming to wikipedia she has attempted to vandalise the Anna Anderson page in the same manner as at Alexander Palace. She refuses to acknowledge proven scientific and historical fact and persists on placing highly inaccurate information using completely discredited 'sources'. She is a proven obsessive Anderson is Grand Duchess Anastasia pusher and needs to realise while this might be her bizarre belief it is not shared by any credible authorities on the matter. Like other obsessed Anderson is Anastasia supporters she uses their 'bible' by Peter Kurth as her only source. She has been warned but persists in the 'I had a right to my opinions' (just like RevAntonio), but repeatedly fails to understand that wikipedia does not push inaccurate 'sources'. She is a master here and elsewhere of twisting her own poor behaviour as if it belongs to others. Those who have had the misfortune of contact with her know this over a very long period indeed. Anybody she believes who dares to have an opinion besides her own according to her 'treats her unfairly'. It is time that her appalling abusive behaviour stopped. She has not been 'sneered at'. She has though been asked to desist in her outrageous abuse, denial and vandalism. She also doesn't realise that any comments on wikipedia are archived and now wishes to have hers removed as the evidence is recorded. That is a sign of somebody who realises they have gone too far and wants to whitewash. I would ask that you intervene to prevent the chronic vandalism caused by ChatNoir24 and the above contributor. I think it is high time the article is locked so that the vandals realise they cannot perpetuate their troll like behaviour. Anna Anderson only causes strong emotions amongst those who wish to perpetuate fraud. She is very insignificant indeed. What is necessary though is for accuracy to be presented. A close examination of the Anna Anderson page over a number of years has seen those with the POV agenda that Anderson is Anastasia trying to foist this proven deception on others. It is just complete mistruth and needs to be seen as such. Thank you Trusilver. Finneganw 11:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought you might find it easier Trusilver to see what the Forum Administrator at Alexander Palace wrote about Schweitzer who Ferrymansdaughter choses to defend.

The Forum Administrator did not want Schweitzer to perpetuate his fantasies on a historical forum. Here is what he told Schweitzer:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=p049olico9vovcfjuvvetv9i77&topic=10364.msg292906#msg292906

I'm done. I'm locking the thread. I will no longer tolerate this bull***t. No more game playing. We will no longer provide this forum as a place for Richard Schweitzer to propogandize his theories, much less call them "truth". They aren't.

Take your fairy tales elsewhere Schweitzer, you had a chance to actually answer questions, but you just won't. You are as much a FRAUD sir, as FS was masquerading under the name of Anna Manahan pretending to be the long deceased Anastasia Nicholaievna. The reason you are a fraud is that the tissue sample was NOT "putative" according to you until you did not get the results you wanted. YOU had no doubt as to whom the sample belonged, until, surprise, the answer wasn't the one you liked. Then suddenly, it becomes "putative". Go away you humbug, you hypocritical obfuscator. Come back when you have some genuine facts or evidence, and have the "cojones" to actually take a position and prove it.Take your crap elsewhere, we will not be party to your deception any longer.

Finneganw 11:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to politely ask Finnganw to stop telling lies about me. (S)he has not and indeed continues to persist with his/her fabrications about me. (S)he is unable to prove any of the allegations because they are simply not true. I have never been banned from any forum or website nor have I abused anyone, unlike Finneganw who persistently abuses anyone whose opinion (s)he does not like. I certainly do not want to have MY comments removed. I want his/her comments removed and the abuse at, and lies about, me stopped. It certainly seems to contravene the wikipedia policy on this and now I quote:

"What is considered to be a personal attack? There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: ....

• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, Ferrymansdaughter, you are not the only person (s)he attacks here on Wikipedia. I have been accused of being several persons and of sock puppetry and posting discredited information. But whenever I have asked for support for his/her lies, nothing is produced. I hope the moderator(s) will do something about this problem as it is becoming rather annoying. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had indeed noticed. I have only been on here for a few days and have already been insulted countless times. I don't know how you stand it and I admire your fortitude in the way you try to introduce some sanity. Aggiebean/Annie accused me in the past of being someone else (but not Peter Kurth!) and seems unable to accept that more than one person disagrees with her. Hopefully the two of them and especially Finneganw will learn some manners shortly. Unfortunately I doubt if that will happen, at least not without some pressure from the moderator(s).Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to see the game you are playing. Other have as well. It becomes more and more desperate as you are exposed. Finneganw 23:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The odd use of bulleted paragraphs is one of the idiosyncracies of RevAntonio. Ferrymansdaughter seems to be yet another sock puppet. -Lisa (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you but I am me, and only me. I have no idea who RevAntonia is and I am sure the moderators can check out our IP addresses and work out that we are not the same person.Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really should stop your nonsense Ferrymansdaughter as you become increasingly pathetic as others identify and expose you. It's high time that you stopped causing regular problems at wikipedia like you have done elsewhere. Finneganw 07:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The above is further information on clear distortion, ranting and abuse by two obsessive Anna Anderson supporters who will stop at nothing to abuse those who try to clean up the extreme vandalism they cause on a regular basis by pushing discredited sources. Both users have been banned from other sites. They always use the same tactics and are now desperately involved in a feeble attempt to cover their tracks. ChatNoir24 has already broken 3RR on 4 June 2009. If you would like evidence of the above it is easily able to be presented. I doubt though the two involved would like the very long list of it published. I hope you will put an end to their troll behaviour. They never participate in discussion. They just keep ramming the totally discreditd and historically inaccurate Anderson is Anastasia agenda. Finneganw 23:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Finneganw and I are very experienced in dealing with Anderson supporters who cannot accept reality, and then get offended and think they are 'insulted' when you have to tell them the way things really are and need to be. Once again, the article is being attacked by a fanatic who cannot give it up or accept that his info is now discredited and not fact and does not belong in the article. An edit war has been raging for days. Please, stop the Anderson supporters and their aliases, it's the only way to ever have a sensible and truthful article.Aggiebean (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I am afraid that Finneganw and Aggiebean are doing the things they accuse others of - distortion, ranting and abuse - and anyone who reads our posts can see this. They accuse others of refusing to participate in any discussion but if anyone tries to engage them in one, they merely say "DNA ...etc" and will not countenance any further discussion on the topic. This is predictable behaviour from them. I have barely touched the article so can hardly be engaged in an "edit war". However I will not allow them to bully me or tell lies about me. I have never been banned from anything, much less a website. I have never used any name other than Ferrymansdaughter on any forum or board. I suggest that both try and prove I have been banned or I use other aliases or give it all a rest. It is becoming wearisome. I am going on holiday and look forward to finding out, upon my return, that the two of them have developed some manners. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason DNA is referred to is because it is historical fact that proves Anderson to be a total fraud. This is the opinion of historians and major news agencies. The DNA she so ridiculously rejects has been objectively dealt with by a great many highly respected scientists at laboratories in a great many countries. Ferrymansdaughter grossly insults the reputations of these credible men and women and pathetically keeps on pushing her fantasy beliefs, based on no historical or scientific fact. In fact it was an Anderson supporter, Richard Schweitzer who insisted that the medical material from Anderson be DNA tested as he verified its authenticity. When it was proved beyond doubt that it did not belong to Grand Duchess Anastasia, he pathetically tried to claim it was not that which he has previously identified. He has been exposed and so has Ferrymansdaughter for her obsessive support of Anderson and Schweitzer. It is about time she stopped. She convinces nobody. It is not her place to push inaccurate invention on to any wikipedia user. If Ferrymansdaughter had any manners at all she would be mature enough to admit she is very wrong and to stop repeatedly insulting others with her vulgar and increasingly irrational rants. She has been totally exposed and should exit with some form of dignity. Sadly she is obsessed with pushing gross inaccuracy. Finneganw 09:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

finneganbean! stop your bloody race across the boards here, and stop your insults!we finally know you are incapable of reading... Trusilver is washing his hands of you. Trusilver finally got religion it seems!76.195.94.220 (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver have you given up on us? The new mod is great and has helped a lot but I was wondering if you were ever coming back. I can't blame you if you don't want to, just want to know. Thanks.Aggiebean (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From: REV. ANTONIO HERNANDEZ <suriak@att.net> Subject: Administrators Date: Saturday, June 6, 2009, 3:57 PM

Dear Administrator(s),

I am former user RevAntonio. Yesterday my 30-day ban lifted, an unjust range-block applied by administrator Trusilver. Though it was wrong of me, I posted a warning to certain users who are hounding and attemtping to terrorize me. I see Trusilver has passed the torch to you, and seems to be implying that he's leaving Wikipedia soon. So I post to you, though I know I shouldn't be posting at all, to ask assistance with one issue:

Sometime after being granted the Right to Vanish, I posted a bit at Talk:Anna Anderson, where all the trouble is centred. I shouldn't have done that, but there it is. It also happens that my IP address fluctuates because I am on the net as a business--I cannot help that, my provider tells me. Please, I am requesting administrative intervention at the Anna Anderson talk page and other talk pages, to stop those users from persisting with their knowingly false accusations. The users are Lisa, aggiebean and finneganw--surely you know of them, as they rant on every page they are able. Since user Lisa has been in a great deal of past trouble, she is keeping a much lower profile, but the other two usernames will surely be ranting at you sooner or later.

Although they and Trusilver know who I am, they have all, in collusion, persisted in accusing me of sock-puppetry, vandalization, edit-warring, threats, and other vile nonsense. They had been warned by Trusilver recently to stop the accusations of sock-puppetry, Trusilver informing them that multiple IPs do NOT constitute sock-puppetry. They of course have ignored the direction. My identity matters, because I have posted personal information in the past, and these users find a safe haven by accusing me of being many other users. It is one of their favorite tactics, to chase away editors from the Anna Anderson page.

It is sort of a game with them to make vicious accusations against users they do not like. Admittedly, I do have an abrasive history with these users...assuming it is more than one user...and as a result, it has been Trusilver's sport to harshly punish me, without knowing or caring about any of the actual facts. He merely did whatever the abovementioned users dictated to him, including the range-block. They have been asking since the end of May that my IPs be permanently blocked. On top of all this, those users have no right to mention the old, non-existent username RevAntonio...nor do they have entitlement to bring up my past.

Trusilver finally drew the line when he was ordered to permanently range-block my IPs. This seemed to put an end to any publicly posted collusion on Trusilver's part. Something more: I can CC you or direct you to the section on Trusilver's talk page, in which he stated to me that he was using a special double standard against me because he did not like me. If you go to his talk page, you will find it if you simply search the page for the term double standard. He has deleted certain posts I have left him in the past, in which I rightfully challenged his unfairness. He has encouraged the use of my now-non-existent username/user identity, and he has gossiped about me to other users. The other guilty users have been having a field day with my identity and old non-existent username since my unjustified IPs range-block.

Though it is fruitless, I have submitted my case to both arbitration and bureaucracy--they have both assured me they are forwarding my request for amelioration to the proper party. I have no idea who that party is, and that is why I'm posting THIS for all to see.

I have noted that the users in question somehow breeze through the system, undisciplined and out-of-control. In the past, they have accused others as they now accuse me, of being the author Peter Kurth, another individual whom they loathe. Kurth unfortunately has a bad and foolish history on the same talk page Anna Anderson; he did battle there because he wrote Anna Anderson's biography. I attest that I am not Peter Kurth nor any other user now active.

You will see now, also, that these users have found a way to sneak in posts without any kind of signature showing. This way, no one can see who has posted which information. I have no doubt they are vandalizing their own talk posts in their effort to terrorize editors they dislike.

Please, I am asking you in an act of self-protection, that you approach and warn these users about this hounding and cyber-terrorism. They know how to work this system, and I have no doubt they will set Wikipedia aflame once they see this post; I can assure you they are monitoring for yet another chance to persist in their wrongdoing.

Rev. Dr. Antonio Akiva Hernandez, O.M.D., Judaeobuddhist Order www.myspace.com/judaeobuddhist www.cryptojews.com/Antonio_Hernandez.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.94.220 (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]