Real77

Thanks!

I just want to say that I'm glad we've been able to work things through. It's so much better when people come to agreement rather than continually bash heads against each other! The article is looking much better than when it first appeared, and I'm sure it will improve! Enjoy your time at Wikipedia, and I hope you get involved in other articles that interest you.— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wilding

Please discuss problems with edits in articles on the article's talk page, not on a user's page. Also, use edit functions to be clear what you are discussing, such as copying and pasting from the article. I don't work for David Shankbone. This is Wikipedia. I am an editor, like you and like David Shankbone. KP Botany 03:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to understand English then.You have changed words like public speaker to public peaker and several other things.You have put things in small caps when they should be in large.For exmaple the words Director,Producer are usually in caps on most writings.Regardless these changes are juvenile and waste peoples time.You have changed the word ""spent" to "spend" when the correct venacular is spend.Please repost the edit tag so it can be ammended.

You complained about Public Speaker being changed to public speaker, now it is public peaker? This could have been corrected by you by typing one single letter, rather than this post. No, these words are not in large caps, and neither are they in small caps. They are in lower case letters, and they do not start with capital letters in writing articles. They start in capital letters when used as titles in listing these positions. Feel free to post your style guide that argues otherwise, but you won't find one. The edit tag is still on the article, and was not removed, and desperately needs to stay. And stop with the useless and pointless personal attacks, like "troll," screamed in capital letters, and "juvenile and waste peoples time," please. There is no indication that Anna Wilding deserves such a poorly written article, so I have asked other editors to get it up to snuff. KP Botany 04:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We said that you changed it from Public Speaker to public peaker.As you did.Then you changed it back again to public speaker.We Could not change it to public speaker as there was no EDIT tag to do so.Maybe as you were in there.We were trying to add a link as well and could not get in. Where is the EDIT tag for that section.There is no issue with the article being made better however there is an issue when one sees changes like that public speaker to public peaker.Surely you can understand that.it did not look like legitimate editing but it looked like a troll.No problems with the caps thing.If thats the way these movie job titles work on wikipedia that is the way it is.it seems to be different on each persons wiki.Thanks.

Oh, I see what you're talking about, there's no edit tag on this section. No, for the first section of the page you use the "edit this page" tab that is at the top of the page, not the little "edit" tabs that you see in the individual section. On the first section of the page, there is no such little "edit" tab. Who is "we," and why do you keep speaking of yourself in the first person? Have you read the policies and guidelines about editing Wikipedia? In addition, please sign your posts, and please put spaces between sentences in your posts--the latter is simply standard English, and will have to be edited all over the Anna Wilding article so that people can read it. It might be good practice to get the habit by doing it in your posts. KP Botany 04:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have someone coming in and out of the room , my wife, that is why, and it is time for sleep.I see the Edit page now. There's a space like this between each line or a double space between each word. Oh a space between sentences. Like this. Thanks.

Thank you for the spacings between sentences, it does make it much easier to read. Let's work on the four tildas for your signature next, okay? KP Botany 17:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Signing posts

You can sign your posts by either putting four tildas after them, ~~~~ or by using the button above this edit box, the one right after the red circle, that is, I suppose, supposed to look like a signature. If you click on it when you are done writing, it will add two dashes and four tildas to the end of your post so your user name and the date appears. KP Botany 03:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also 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 04:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Image:Anna Wilding signs with Gil Scrine Films Ltd.Sydney 2006 copyright CDF LLC.JPG

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Anna Wilding signs with Gil Scrine Films Ltd.Sydney 2006 copyright CDF LLC.JPG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Anna Wilding signs with Gil Scrine Films Ltd.Sydney 2006 copyright CDF LLC.JPG is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Anna Wilding signs with Gil Scrine Films Ltd.Sydney 2006 copyright CDF LLC.JPG, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 06:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This picture was owned by www.annawilding.com and all rights were clear.It was not in violation of any copyright.The photographer gave it to the then webmaster of www.annawilding.com for usage in all media except print over three years ago.No matter.Maybe Shankbone will shoot more.

Another account

Hello, are you using two Wikipedia accounts? If you are, you may be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on sockpupptry (see Wikipedia:Sock puppet), depending on how you are using them. Please read that policy. I apologize if this doesn't apply to you. If it does apply to you, it would be good to disclose your other account and stop using it. Sancho 15:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

N0- not using two wikipeida accounts at all.Does not apply

Editing other people's comments

Do not edit my words to make them say something other than what I said. My posts contain what I wrote with my signature underneath it. Feel free to disagree with anything I write, but do not edit my words without explicitly stating on the page that you have done so and why, including your signature, and what the original was, and an explanation--beneath my post, not in it. I'll take credit and blame for my own words. Don't do that again. KP Botany 18:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Never mind.The Wiki looks good now - and complete, in part due to some of your editing, and I think any misunderstandings were cleared up.Moving on.

In this post you changed my "are" to a past tense "were."[1] As this was above my signature you edited my comment without signing or indicating you did this. Don't do it again. If I post something and you disagree, simply disagree, but do not edit my comments on Wikipedia to make it seem as if I said something else. You put your signature under what you said, and I put my signature under what I said, but you don't modify what I said to make it seem I said something else.

Also your addition of "Ms." makes the article appear to be an amateurish fancraft article. Ms. Wilding has done nothing to merit a low level article on Wikipedia, she appears to be notable enough and well-sourced enough to get a good, maybe even better article on Wikipedia--editors are working to make it a good article, please allow them to do it. KP Botany 16:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know.Not sure what you mean.Is it that you are not allowed to edit other peoples changes and edits without discussing first?Is that how it works? Well, I disagree that it reads like a resume.I think it is a question of "lay out" and the content box(now added) only. I don't know about all 'Ms" stuff. I think she is still a Miss Wilding as not married.I just thought it read better saying MS Wilding,than Wilding and Anna Wilding a few times.But if not that's fine too.I agree that Wilding deserves to be better than a low level article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Real77 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between editing what other people have written in an encyclopaedic article (as long as it keeps to Wikipedia's various policies), and editing what someone wrote on a talk page, which is not permitted. As for the "Ms" thing, as has been pointed out on the Anna Wiling talk page [2], using Ms goes against the Manual of Style. You've done a good job getting the content of the article in place, you might want to let other people who are mor familiar with Wikipedia work on getting the quality of the article up to standard. And please, sign your edits on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 18:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done the best I could.The content is accurate. Ms Wilding is important and although well documented, almost under publicized. Yes others are more familiar with Wiki Style.I see it has been placed in Intensive care unit?Who did that?Seems extreme.

MS WILDINGS DID NOT CAMPAIGN ON LORD OF THE RINGS.She bahve din athroughly profesisonal manner in dialogue wiht teh stuioids and various agencies.THAT IS MALICIOUS GOSSIP AND HERESAY. FAR FROM IT.SHE INVESTIGATED IT. THE ORIGINAL WORDING IS CORRECT.ANYTHING MENITON OF CAMPAIGNING IS FALSE.MS WILDING WAS INTERNATIONALLY PROMINENT PRIOR TO LORD OF THE RINGS AND SUBJECT TO ARTICLES AROUND THE WORLD.TIM WE ARE NOT PUTING UP WITH YOUR CONITINUED NASTINESS and attacks. JUDITH WAS OUT OF LINE.END OF STORY.MS WILDING ALREADY HAS HAD POLICE INVESTIGATING SLATLKERS and DEFMANERS who cal themselves lord of the rings fans ON HER BEHALF, AND THOSE TRYING TO DO HER AND HER WOKR DAMAGE,I SUGGEST YOU NOT ADD YOURSELF TO THAT LIST>ANY PRBLEMS CONTATC ANNA WILDINGS SOLICTORS AS LISTED ON IMDB>THE WORDING IS INVESTIGATED FOR LORD OF THE RINGS>SHE DID NOT CAMPAIGN

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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also 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 02:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Anna Wilding

Please do not remove necessary editing tags from articles. This has been discussed with you a number of times and you are ignoring the concerns of other editors trying to improve this article. As this article is the biography of a living person Wikipedia will hold it to higher standards than other articles. Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Anna Wilding. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. KP Botany 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We are fully aware of the accuracy of Ms Wilding .In terms of request for citation on music videos.This was in the days before ethigns were documented on internet .So how is that or thign slike that citated???Ms WIlding work visa was tied to the music video company but that private information is not going to be disclosed in public forum.The same with the two gov figure who asked mS Wilding to run.We are not going to disclose their identity.That is private.I thought that would be common sense???

Do you honestly think that a woman like this, has not been fully checked out in all wokr and all aspects by Homeland scurity and everything else in order to live in this country,as has all notable forgeigners who live here. PLease use your heads. How on earth do you think known entertainers and ALL notable figures,models,athletes,actors,politcians,inventors, come to be living here.You think they just walk in? .You Editors seem to have no decorum when it comes to peoples privacy and security. If you have any problems with any future changes that we may make if we believe edits are turthful or accurate , we suggest you contact Ms Wildings lawyers.And who "We"is none of your business.

Dear Real77, I strongly urge you to review some core policies of Wikipedia. The first being neutrality. From your comments, and your vehemence with several issues, I would request also you review the conflict of interest guideline, as when you say "we", it seems to me that in some way, you're saying you are associated with the subject of the above article, in which case, it is generally considered inappropriate for you to edit it, as you would likely be unable to remain neutral, or non-biased. Additionally, I'd request that you review the guideline regarding citation in articles. Just adding a list of publications, without inline citations noting what statements they reference, is not extremely helpful with verifiability. They can be listed in a "sources" section, but it would be best to have inline, verifiable, neutral third-party sources cited for others to go read on their own, should they choose to do so. Additionally, I would request you sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ) as it is difficult to follow conversations when editors do not identify themselves. While I can appreciate your concern regarding the above article, I am not sure you understand the core policies and guidelines here at Wikipedia: Wikipedia is a fact-based, referenced, neutral encyclopedia, and most especially, the biographies of living persons guideline must be followed, which means statements in articles must be backed by verifiable references. Sources such as IMDB are not reliable sources, as they are edit-able by anyone, and incorrect and/or unconfirmed information can be added. I encourage you to take your concerns, and your edit proposals to the article's talk page, and discuss them with the other members of the community who are working on the article, to work as a team with the goal of improving the article. Thank you, ^Ariel♥Gold 03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is neutral.I dont' see that it can be any more neutral.Ms Wilding has had stalkers and her life was threatened. If you did your research you would know this.I doubt she is proferring or would proffer up any third party or instruct any third party,associate or colleauge to disclose or verify anything.I doubt that anyone who knows her will either or the same reason.

There is no vehemence.Self defence from bullying editors or should I say haranguing.Core policies or not your editors are haranging and showing little decorum at times.Other times yes.

No ,"we'refers to my wife as mentioned on previous psots but we do not think it is buisiness of yours or you or any editor .Most poeple who do their research know to refer things to Ms Wildings entertainment lawyer or agents or managers with questions as it is quite prominent on the internet she has been stalked.I really have no interest in editing this article.All I am doing is making sure the content and facts are accurate after the content gets mucked around or slanted at times by your editors.The content was posted...we ammended it and made it accurate...and we intend to keep Ms Wildings integirty.Ms WIlding has recieved more than enough flak for doing good deeds.Someitme your editros are good and sometimes they put in one or two wrong words that completely msiconstrue or slant things.For ex,ample.Ms Wilding does not currently live in London but an editor changed it so it looks as thugh she does.She did live in London until recently but not now.But I have given up trying to explain things like this. Thank you

INCORRECT FACT CHEKCING BY TIMOTAB

Tim seems hell bent on destroying the credibility of very verifiable facts .

You can see evidence of Anna Wildings first portrayal as battered wife on TV screens in NZ Herald article Dated 1993.DO you want it faxed to you by her management?Or do you want to see it on her demo reel?Add immediately or recieve fax..Please provide a fax address and we will contact them. Secondly BUDDHA WILD IS LISTED ON ACADEMY OF ELIGIBLE RELEASES as below.Please correct this immedately "citaiton needed immedately."Go to Academy Website,79thAwards elgible releases and see BUDDHA WILD MONK IN A HUT their clearly.

• [3]Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences List of Eligible Releases in General Categories]

Buddha Wild WAS part of Conversations Screening Series as below.

• [4] Screen Actors Guild Foundation Screening Series

For editors you certainly make a lot of mistakes in your fact checking.

PLEASE REMOVE THE SAFE MODES AS YOUR FACT CHECKINGS ARE IN TOTAL ERROR.

RE SHORTLAND ST: AT NO POINT DID MS WILDINGS EPISODE OCCUR IN 1999.Anna was in London at that time.It occured much earlier in 1992 and 1993.You are immdiately requested to put in this item else face consequences.This not good editing to say"when in doubt"You have been offered the chance to see the facts.You have been offered an opportunity to see it for yourself and the faxed newspaper item,why are you not taking you on the offer.FIX IMMEDIATELY.HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF AN EDITOR WHEN YOU WILL NOT EVEN LOOK AT PROOF

Anna Wilding guest starred in Shortland St playing the first battered wife on the series. Wilding's Guest Starring role was written about in NZ Herald Newspaper article at the time .A long standing New Zealand issue the dramatic story line screened during the Christmas season.

We have added the correct links for AMPAS and SAG Foundation in the main body and request you do likewise immediately on the EXTERNAL LINKS REFERENCE. We have PROOF of MS Wilding in Shortland..Her management and lawyers have the REEL And newspaper release.

Anna Wilding played GAIL (GAYLE)on SHortland St.The first battered wife

Anna Wilding played Gayle (Gail) on Shortland St the first battered wife on the show.It was noted in much media as it starred Anna Wilding and was a dramatic storyline .Opposite Temuera Morrison and Stepahnie Wilkin.Pleas add this fact immediately and all the others facts you have put in error Tim when the facts are there includiing AMPAS and Scren Actors Guild Foundation

No personal attacks againsg other users.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. See your contribution to Talk:Anna Wilding.[5] Also, please don't type in all caps on talk pages, or elsewhere, as it is considered yelling on the web--something you may not know, which is not considered part of this warning. KP Botany 19:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encylopieda" No they are not. Is this why the page was locked off ,and one of the few people with verifiable material can't contribute before the wiki is finished?Instead Editors who take bonifide provable credits off ,can contribute....ie. Shortland St,proof of which has now been faxed to David Shankbone. I rest my case. This is one of the worst experiences of my life,rude harassing editors who don't read correctly..or reaserch properly from notes on the discussion page ( boats,yachts,) or misconstruing words on the wiki and typing them out differently in one case,...And as long as editors dont do either or any of these things then they deserve to be questioned on it.It was not an attack.it was pointing out their mistakes .It was defence. That is not an attack.That is frustration at obvious mistakes by two editors who persisted in making snide comments and mistakes on facts, and cleary as a result the harranguing of a user.

I appreciate you stepping in and having your say and noted..but in large part, I rest my case. I do not want to hear any more from anyone . Thank you. .

WIKIPEDIA UNETHICAL

Fine. Well Wikipedia certainly has some strange and unethical policies as an Enclopedia. It seems David Shankbone who has been sent hard evidence of Anna Wilding's Shortland St refuses to address or fix such matters as that unless Anna Wilding gives him an interview.Why would any talent give an interview on this basis.Who would given an interview to a site that cant get its facts straight in spite of being offered the evidence too.This seems a tad unethical.Well I can fax the item confimring Anna Wildings gusst starring role in Shortland St as a battered wife and it wil be loaded to www.annawilding.com at some point.How strange and lacking in credibility that Wikipedia ,an Enclopedia chooses not to correct facts and see factual evidence.Yep Wikiepedia cannot be trusted and then Editors lock off the pages so those with the correct knowledge cant fix the errors..and wont do so unless subjects give an interview.This is unethical.But tha tis what the upshot of David Shnakbones acitosn seem to be.I am hapy to fax the proof of Shortland St to any editor that asks.This may just be a hobby for you Editors but for your subjects it is their reputation ,and their profession.Despite Shankbone suddenly coming up with such an excuse and time and other things the fact is ..his actions are..he has refused to fix the SHortland St issue unless Anna gives an on camera interview.Not cool.Busy or not he has not communicated otherwise nor made an effort otherwise but ahs tkane the time to write alengthy email about an interview,rather than fix a quick citation now that he has the evidence....

REQUEST UNPROTECTED

It is requested this wiki be "unprotected" so we can fix factual ommissions such as Shortland St as above and the AMPAS External link. It is unethical for a company calling itself an enclylopedia ot ignore evidential proof when provided or else refuse to see it.As such it would seem portitns of this wiki are best left to those editors who are prepared to see and utilise factual proof of TV shows like Shortland St where Anna Wilding guest starred as a battered wife ..Unless there is another Editior who will do the job for which he or she is enititled. Don't mean to come across as b adversarial but this has been created through editors refusing to listen and look at the facts on this point and therby smaign the professional life and reputation of Ms Wilding.Had your Eidotrs bene trustworthy in their facts then a protection would be of high value,however valid items seem to be slipping like Shortland St which is a notable credit>If Wikpedia is not going to play ball with 3rd aprty verifable issues then this shall be referred to lawyers as an individual has the right to control his or her reptutation and,name and likeness through themselves or third parties.It is said everyone can edit awiki.Until a wiki is complete one would like to think that is the case.

Legal threats on Wikipedia

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. [6]KP Botany 06:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you agree to not make any more legal threats on Wikipedia, I (or another administrator) may unblock you. --- RockMFR 07:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree not to make legal threats.But I would,like you to review the item sent to David Shankbone about Shortland St.Despite what he says the newspaper clipping he was sent clearly lists Anna Wilding in the role of battered wife.Shortland St was also contacted today and confirmed Anna's role of Gail.They to pointed out that their current websites are operated by recent fans not by fans of the show ten years ago. We also note the rude comments by David Ingles about Agressive pubicity seeking.This is not true of Anna at all and we request he be told off aboutt his and apologize.e presuem eh got this fomr a webiste where stalkers ,who have since been investigated by the police,were trying to destroy Anna Wildings crediblity due to a court case on Lord of the RIngs that did not directly involved her but could as a witness.We also note the incorrect working with regards to Lord of the Rings.Anna Wilding invesitgate and mediated this..And if you lok at www.annawilding you will see quotes fomr riders thanking her.

It also says Ana Wilding "briefly" ran Moving Horse Pictures. This is not true.She owned the company for several years. We note several other problems with the article that demean Anna Wilding and her work ,which is provem up by the insulting and defamatory comments of people like E Ingles towards Anna>ie the comment "publicity seeking "is untrue and biased against Anna Wilding we want it removed.Sm Wildign si so unlike that,unlike every other celebrity and politician she does not hire aPR company.

SHORTLAND ST QUOTE IN NEWSPAPER

As reiterated above here is the quote in the NZ Herald newspaper ,below a photo of Anna Wilding ,that David Shanbone is lying about ,denying or did not read properly

QUOTE: "Anna Wilding....can be spied on Shortland St on Christmas Eve when she plays a battered wife.Inthe US Wilding worked on...."

If oyu provide email addresses I can email it to see with your own eyes

Shortland St was not minor

Shortland St was not minor. I think K Botany should see the news snippet for herself.It also has a news photo of Ms Wilding.

How can you call something you have not even seen minor. Is that why it was mentioned in the NATIONAL newspaper,and others because it was minor? Shortland St was contacted today.They are updating all the actors credits of the shows early years as noted above,the current sites are fan based by current fans of the show only/.What part of this do you not understand?

The normal phrase for any actor to star in episodes of any show,including American TV shows is Guest Star.I suggest you go to sites like Actors Access to see actors resume.Every single Actor who appears in speaking roles is called GUEST STAR on TV.Pleas apologize this on the discussion page for yet again,demeaning bias shown by yourself and others to Ms Wilding on the discussion page.

.

Anna Wildings episode/storyline played over 2-3 shows.We suggest you also stop attacking the credibility of MS Wilding as you have done K Botany. Ms Wilding has not contributed ot this wiki and wherever you get that information or basis to attack Ms Wildings credibility,in any shape of or form is false and slanderous.Can you not see that or what you are doing.Open your eyes.Ms Wilding has not done a single thing in her life to merit such slanderous comment.She is straight honest and to the point and if anything on the humble side You accuse me, REAL 77,myself of attacking an Editor.Is that not the pot calling the kettle black K Botany.I hope timotab send you the attachments and the first email.I also have the official Buddha Wild cinema movie poster,that was used at the art house cinemas in LA and overseas that can be added if you want.

We note Timotab is a new born christian.Hopefully he will apply some christian ethics.At least he was honest enough to verify part of the quote.I hope you see it for yourself and we reiterate that Ms Wilding was known long before Buddha Wild,Lord of the Rings.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Real77 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 13:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)