User talk:AlexiusHoratius/Archive 3

Repeated breaking of 3RR by User:ChatNoir24 at Anna Anderson

I would like to draw your attention to the repeated vandalism and breaking of the 3RR rule by User:ChatNoir24. Please note that ChatNoir24 has also been involved in a very long running edit war using discredited sources. He has already been warned. Thanks in advance.Finneganw 22:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article due to the content dispute, although, as I said at Talk:Anna Anderson, I didn't block anyone as it looks like the edit war that's been going on for the past few days has calmed down at least in the last few hours. AlexiusHoratius 04:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it quieted is because people went to bed. It would have continued all day if not locked. I know you don't have time to read the whole story to find out what is behind this, so please let me tell you briefly. Anna Anderson was not Anastasia as DNA tests from 1994 and again in 2008 have confirmed. However, ChatNoir24 and his socks and a couple buddies cannot accept this and insist on adding their 'side' to the story though it is now totally discredited as false. Finneganw and I have tried to keep it factual and eliminate the now discredited info for educational purposes, but Chat will not let this happen. He insists on readding things that do not belong in the article. The Anna Anderson talk page and its archive is proof that discussing or 'talking it out' does no good with him and never will, because he does not accept reality and in his realm everyone against Anderson was a 'liar'. The only option is to stop this fanatic from ruining the article by banning or blocking him and his socks. Thank you for your time.Aggiebean (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed by now, these two individuals are only providing personal attacks against the ones who are trying to make the article historically correct. They have an agenda, and that is to remove all evidence in Anna Anderson's favor. They call Peter Kurth's wonderfully researched book "trash" and "discredited", only because it does not go with their view. They are removing excerpts of writings by persons connected to Anna Anderson only because it goes against their agenda. In addition, they are accusing me of being Peter Kurth and having a number of sock puppets. People like these should be banned from editing on Wikipedia for good. Please take a look at Bookworm's pages, it will show you the ongoing trouble she had from these two individuals. Thank you for any help. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, with the article protected, it will at least be quiet for a bit - I'll look through the talk page and its archives over the next couple days and try to find out what's going on with this, whether it looks like a simple content dispute or not. AlexiusHoratius 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope this can be sorted . In the 3 or 4 days I've been on this site, I have been insulted left right and centre and all sorts of unfounded accusations made against me both here and on various talk pages including my own. I have asked people several times to stop but they keep on doing it. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much AlexiusHoratius for locking the page. ChatNoir24 has an extremely long history of repeatedly vandalising the page putting in totally discredited inaccurate 'sources' over an extended period. If you investigate he only ever uses Kurth, Rathlef and Botkin (all rabid Anderson supporters who have been totally discredited as completely unobjective and proven historical and scientific fiction). He is a rabid Anna Anderson is Grand Duchess Anastasia supporter as is Ferrymansdaughter. If you check the page and archives of Trusilver you will find further details on their past behaviour here and elsewhere. They have been both repeatedly warned by numerous editors to stop pushing their inaccurate POV agenda. They are not interested in discussion. This can clearly be seen by their responses. I have noted ChatNoir24's rants have been conveniently removed. I would suggest you look into the archives as they are all there. Once again thank you very much for your calm intervention. It is greatly appreciated. Finneganw 00:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Bookworm also is an Anderson supporter and has tried to remove anybody who disagrees with the discredited Kurth. Recently he/she has stopped doing this as Trusilver has made it known that using discredited sources is not acceptable. A close examination will show that the vast majority of sources show that Anderson was a fraud. ChatNoir24 cannot accept this. Finneganw 00:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you may find it interesting to see what Truesilver wrote to Bookworm: Is there any chance you can stop by and give your opinion on an appropriate dispute resolution for this article? You were a great voice of reason there once and turned a horrific article into a good one. Maybe you will have some luck there where the other regulars have not. Trusilver 20:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)ChatNoir24 (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm still looking into this, just give me another day or so, as there is a lot to read. By the way, unless anything really out of hand is going on, I'll probably just be taking up a role as an informal, but completely neutral mediator, and we'll see if a compromise or something can be agreed upon. My fear is that the old edit war would just flare up again once the protection lapses, so before then let's see if we can work something out on the talk page in the next few days. AlexiusHoratius 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your patience and time in looking into this matter. ChatNoir24 only backs Bookworm as he is also a fellow Anderson supporter in denial of historic and scientific fact. Bookworm has a very long history of squashing anybody who challenges Peter Kurth's discredited book. Finneganw 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A request

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

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) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RevAntonio - a formal request for wikipedia administrators

The above entry is yet another in a very long line of outrageous and bizarre rants by an editor who has caused nothing but severe problems at wikipedia. He was banned for a period and has returned having learnt nothing during the ban. He is quite frankly highly irrational and dangerous. I would like to formally request that the ban be extended for a much longer period as he has a proven record of causing massive problems at wikipedia. I very much doubt they will cease. Would you please take this matter to a discussion panel of administrators. Thank you in advance. Finneganw 23:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And there you have it. A plea in good faith is immediately interpreted for you by the infallible finneganw! I can agree with the above user in one thing: take this matter to a discussion panel of administrators. One better: take it to arbitration as I have asked. This creature will not escape so easily with his bullying, lies and insults this time.76.195.94.220 (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly further evidence of ranting. Finneganw 02:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please check the Anna Anderson discussion page urgently. The one under investigation has completely flipped. Finneganw 05:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Anna Anderson. As I said there, I'm about ready to take this either to ANI or MEDCAB or something, as things are getting out of hand, but let's see if there is any last hope for rational dispute resolution before that happens. AlexiusHoratius 04:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Response

I am responding to you here Alexius Horatius because the flame war of the rabid Anderson supporters has started once more since I went to bed. I believe one in particular ChatNoir24 is highly irrational. He cannot discuss the matter rationally and has been the cause of the recent edit war. I have no objection to the mistaken identity being discussed but as you say it should be in the past tense and basically in a section by itself as it is not at all accurate. This is the main problem that there are rabid supporters who will never ever accept reality. They will continue to distort the page placing in highly discredited information as they simply cannot deal with any criticism of the woman. Aggiebean has been able to trace ChatNoir24, I have also been able to do the same, to much earlier entries as 'pk' sometimes even signed as Peter Kurth. I think it is highly curious that RevAntonio disappears and ChatNoir24 appears. This bears investigation. Bookworm sadly is another supporter who uses the tired old argument 'she was not Anastasia but I cannot accept she was Schankowska'. DNA has proven she is Schankowska. There are varying degrees of rabid Anderson support. They cannot let go. That is why I believe to give them an inch is to give them a mile. I think perhaps the only solution is if they wish to have information about the 'myth' of Anderson, they should have their own page elsewhere. The Forum Administrator at the Alexander Palace discussion board where ChatNoir24, Ferrymansdaughter and so on have caused the same mayhem has categorically stated that Anderson was not Anastasia and all discussion of such is totally banned. He has not done that lightly. I guess he has wanted to ban proven trolls who cause nothing but mayhem. I believe my solution, while far from perfect, is the most rational one suggested. I feel that the rabid supporters will never be placated and as such the article needs to be locked. I don't really like requesting this. Can you see any other solution? You may have noticed ChatNoir24 takes some sort of twisted pleasure in deliberately tortmenting Aggiebean. I believe he needs to be banned for a time. He also uses IP addresses that can be easily found on the discussion page. He simply does not understand the word 'discussion'. You can explain information to him until every person on the planet is blue in the face and he is unable to understand as his mind is closed. I believe it all has to end soon. It has gone on for way too long. I think the bottom line is that the content must be verifiable. None of the Anderson supporter information is. Over to you now. Finneganw 02:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I resent that, Finnegan. I laid out what I would like to see done with that article and my rationale for it and why I disagreed with you on that page and you apparently prefer to claim that everyone who disagrees with your position is completely irrational. Anna Anderson was not Anastasia. She was in all likelihood Franziska Schanzkowska. The DNA testing proved that Anderson shared mitochondrial DNA with the Schanzkowski family, strongly suggestive in combination with other evidence that she was Schanzkowska. mtDNA isn't, however, proof positive of an absolute identity with Franziska Schanzkowska, just proof that she shared a maternal line ancestor at some point with Schanzkowska, which is likely true of a number of other people in that part of Europe. That's what the article has said and should continue to say. I'll add here that this article is about Anna Anderson. Kurth's book appears to be the most comprehensive biography of ANDERSON and belongs in the article along with other references that present the opposite, currently accepted point of view about her identity. I'm not sure what administrator AlexHoratius knows about this particular case, but I don't believe that Finnegan's view alone should prevail, for the reasons I gave above and on the talk page. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is not MY view. It is the view of the vast majority of respected historians and scientists. Finneganw 10:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. If she was probably Franziska Schanzkowska, but not surely her, then that is what we should be saying in the article, as we shouldn't be using the facts to come to our own conclusions about things. I also agree that sources about her life, including Kurth's, could be used to provide context and explanation about the events of Anderson's life, as, like you said, the article is about Anderson. Even if they it was ultimately proven to be incorrect, the speculation that she was the Romanov princess was a part of her life, and nearly the entire reason that we have an article about her. AlexiusHoratius 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is much evidence to prove she was more than just 'probably' Schanzkowksa. Most of it is already included in the article and sourced.Aggiebean (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I share your fear that once the present protection expires in a few days the edit war will start all over again. I had thought that there was perhaps a chance that we could come to a version which, while not everyone would be happy with, at least one that everyone could live with, but I don't know if that's really possible; the disagreements are too entrenched and widespread, and the number of editors currently involved seems too small to claim a clear consensus either way. I suppose it's up to you guys on where to go from here. Either do an RfC, which will get more people involved and is probably the next step in dispute resolution before a request for arbitration, or if the editing to the article gets out of hand you could put it on ANI for an uninvolved admin to look at blocking people for disruptive editing. The mediation cabal would usually be another option, but, as I said earlier, I don't really think at this point simple mediation will really get anywhere.

I'll keep an eye on things, but I don't know if there's really too much I can do at this point other than re-protecting the article for a longer period. Indefinite full protection isn't really an option, as that basically locks everyone out of making any edits, and we're supposed to be a wiki. But if things do get out of control on the article again, a longer period of full protection while these things get sorted out may be the way to go. AlexiusHoratius 02:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you can see what we are dealing with here. I feel an edit war will start, as it did when the previous admin only edit was lifted, the moment any admin controlled editing is allowed. One particular obsessive editor, ChatNoir24, has showed ample evidence of this on the discussion page. I am sadly not sure how to do an ANI. Hopefully the others will see sense if some sort of action is taken that warns them off. ChatNoir24 though, if banned, will attempt to come back time and time again and create chaos using as many different guises as possible. He has used such tactics repeatedly on other websites and becomes extremely malicious and highly vindictive. Perhaps a 'myth of Anderson' should be established at wikipedia so that Chat and co can edit that to their hearts content. The Anna Anderson page should though categorically state that she was a complete fraud. If you examine any page on wikipedia about the last Tsar and his family, some sort of troll has tried to place Anderson on it. That shows the extent the situation has spread. Perhaps a group of administrators need to discuss tactics while some sort of admin only edit remains in force. I don't believe you alone should come in for attack as Trusilver has had to endure. Note the chaos RevAntonio caused and continued to cause once his ban was lifted. Certainly those who set out to deliberately place false information on wikipedia are a real problem and break the 'verifiable' rule blatantly. I am not sure how to deal with that issue. I can only suggest that is a matter for those more important than me at wikipedia. I certainly know when the Scientology article got out of control firm action was taken. That's all I can suggest I am afraid for those who will not see reason. Finneganw 02:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that given the article's history and the disruptive behavior by some (on all sides) that some sort of action besides simple dispute resolution is probably needed here, but there are a few problems with what you're suggesting. Articles don't get fully protected for an indefinite amount of time, and what you seem to be suggesting with the "myth of Anderson" article is a POV fork, in other words a seperate article created purely to provide space for a seperate POV. All Wikipedia articles should adhere to a neutral point of view, we don't multiple articles for multiple POVs. AlexiusHoratius 21:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind advice. I understand what you are saying about the fork and the need for a neutral POV. It was only a suggestion to try to placate some who should perhaps not be placated at all. I guess they need some sort of wikipedia sandbox where they can play out their fantasy. I think it is pretty clear that those who support Anderson being Anastasia have an extreme inaccurate POV. They are like those who push that the world is flat. Surely that has no place in an article except in some form of 'there were some who believed or promoted Anderson as Anastasia. They have since been historically and scientifically proved wrong'. I think that is what you were suggesting. Of course ChatNoir24 will never accept this as he is completely incapable of doing so. That is why I believe he needs to be formally banned. If you look at his recent imput it is clear that he is never going to change. The same applies to Ferrymansdaughter and RevAntonio. I believe Bookworm can sort of find a middle ground. He does though not understand at all how very rare it is for the same DNA sequences to be shared outside a family. It is basically a scientific impossibility. That is why the Schankowska DNA does not match the Romanov DNA and this has been repeatedly proven in a great many respected laboratories. They are not from the same family. I believe if ChatNoir24 is removed from the scenario most of the problems will disappear. The lack of others editors suggests that others are simply not interested in Anderson. The article needs to be accurate. That is something the unobjective POV Kurth book has never been. If Kurth's book had been accurate there would be a great many other books that agree with him. The fact there are none proves the lack of worth of his tome. In fact there has never been an accurate biography on Anderson published. Kurth's book was not a biography. It was a bid to push Anderson as Anastasia which is hardly the same as a biography. It is inaccurate and not verifiable. Anderson supporters will never agree to proven reality. Like you I really want to see what has been a real problem ended. The vast majority of wiki editors want wikipedia to be taken seriously. It never happens when gross POV inaccuracies are included and perpetuated. Finneganw 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The books I have that describe the mtDNA testing that was done comparing DNA from Anderson with the Schanzkowski great nephew indicate that it was not absolute proof, that other people could also share mtDNA who are not closely related. You inherit mtDNA from your mother and you would share that with your maternal line cousins, your maternal grandmother, her siblings, and the children of her sisters, your maternal line great-grandmother, her siblings, and the children and grandchildren of her sisters and their daughters and granddaughters, ad infinitum. There might be some mutations along the way, as happened with Nicholas II, but you can probably go pretty far back, to pretty distant relatives and share mtDNA. That could include a sizeable portion of Germany and Poland, for all we know. In combination with the other evidence, it DOES indicate she was probably Schanzkowska, but alone the mtDNA just means that she was some sort of maternal line relative, however closely or distantly related. If they've done more precise testing in recent years and there is proof of a more complete identity, by all means cite the article and put it in Anderson's Wikipedia article. I haven't seen any such article and I'm interested enough in this sort of thing that I think I understand it pretty well for a layman and that I probably would have seen it. Incidentally, I am a woman and not a man. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I HAVE cited it in the article, where I mention Dr. Terry Melton saying that years later, the sequence was still unique though the database was much larger, leading to increased confidence that she was FS. I have also corresponded personally with Dr. Melton on this topic.Aggiebean (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But it's still an mtDNA test and theoretically there could be a number of cousins with the same sequence. I suppose it depends on how prolific the family was. If the Schanzkowski maternal lineage has been traced back a few hundred years, you could probably pinpoint who's who and who would share the same profile. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many theoretical viewpoints on many different areas. What is necessary to be dealt with are not theories but fact. Anderson has been DNA proved to be from the Schankowski family and no other member of that family apart from Franziska is available as they all actually lived their lives as who they really were. Franziska was the only one 'missing'. That is not open to debate. It is not theory, it is fact. Please don't try to avoid the issue Bookworm with your POV theory. Once again it is up to you to prove verifiable fact, not the discredited Kurth, that she was not Schankowska. Finneganw 10:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The identical cousin theory does not hold weight at all given the other evidence (computer facial comparisons by Geoffrey Oxlee, the 20's detectives' findings, and the very fact she disappeared in the same time and place AA appeared.) The chances that she was some random long lost cousin is so remote it is really not worth even presenting or even insinuating in the article. Besides, I now have a source stating outright that the DNA proved Anderson to be FS. It is Seven Daughters of Eve, Bryan Sykes, p.74-75.Aggiebean (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What if we just said something like "the DNA tests largely proved that AA was a member of the Schanzkowski family", or something along those lines. That, taken with the other evidence in the article, makes it appear pretty likely that she was Schanzkowska, without saying that the DNA tests themselves proved that Anderson was a Schanzkowski. AlexiusHoratius 02:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The situation is that she was more than largely proved. Her DNA actually matches a member of the Schankowski family. It was a complete match to the Schnakowski family just as complete as Prince Philip was a complete match to Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna and her children were. There is no doubt. Sadly Bookworm does not want to face reality as it demolishes the final straw he/she clutches. This is the reason why Anderson supporters continue to knock DNA testing as it is what completely demolished all their other Anderson is Anastasia rubbish. It is all very well documented. Finneganw 10:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I could go with AlexHoratius's suggestion. That's the truth. I have Sykes' "The Seven Daughters of Eve" somewhere as well. It's an interesting book and he's citing the prevailing opinion, probably according to the news accounts, if I remember right, but he didn't do the testing on Anderson and the Schanzkowski nephew either. It doesn't change what mtDNA says and what it does not say about absolute identity. No one is saying Schanzkowska/Anderson had an identical cousin. People don't have to look exactly alike or be at all closely related to share mtDNA. If you had maternal ancestors in the vicinity of Sweden, you and I might share mtDNA too if we had ancestors who were related 200 years back. What I'm saying is that there's always a possibility that several young women of a similar age who shared the same profile and the same great-grandmother 5 or 10 generations back could have been in Berlin at that time. But you're right that it's unlikely that she's anyone but Franziska. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bookworm you are still avoiding the issue. She was not Anastasia and she was 99.9% Schankowska. This ridiculous nonsense that she could be somebody else shows a distinct lack of reasoning and research. Perhaps you might like to explain what happened to Schankowska and why there is no record of any life for Anderson before she suddenly appeared. Certainly she didn't have Anastasia's childhood at all and Schankowska didn't stop living as proved by DNA. The two are clearly the same. For some unexplained reason you simply can't admit it. If she were another Schankowska I suggest you try and prove it. No other Schankowskas came screaming out saying "I was the one". The game is up and Anderson was a fraud and Schankowska. There are no other possibilities. That is what needs to be highlighted right from the very beginning of the article. There is no evidence of any childhood for Anderson whatsoever and nobody else shares her DNA from any other family like you try to push. DNA tends to run out as families come to an end as they invariably do if no children are born. People from different blood families do not share the same DNA. They are completely different sequencing. Families and their unique DNA combinations do run out. You only have to look at how titles run out due to a lack of offspring and yes they go through the father and not the mother's line. How about you prove she was NOT Schankowska. There's a challenge for you. Provide the verifiable evidence. It has all been explained by eminent scientists, but you for whatever reason still think you know better than all of them. That is plainly a rather bizarre and inaccurate stance. Finneganw 07:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would further suggest that the following is read from the existing page about Schankowska.

"It is widely accepted that Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska, a Kashubian factory worker.[10][11] Credible historians accept this identity, and major news agencies such as The Associated Press and United Press International state as a fact in their reporting that Anderson was Schanzkowska[12][13]"

Widely accepted does not mean totally but it means the vast majority accept it. Name any real historians, apart from Kurth, who does not accept the identity. There is yet another challenge for Bookworm to find the verifiable sources, apart from Kurth and the members of the flat earth grouping. Finneganw 08:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Very true. Bookworm tries to say there is some 'controversy' over whether she was Schanzkowska, but actually the only people who are denying it are Kurth, Botkin's son in law Richard Schweitzer (who also admits to believing she was Anastasia despite the DNA,) and a small, though vocal, handful of diehard Anderson supporters. No historian other than Kurth, and NO scientists doubt the identification. (There was one, Knight, but his theory has been disproven) What is at the heart of this denial of her being Schanzkowska is that some people cannot accept that they or their family were fooled by a Polish peasant. They believe a rich person would never be fooled by someone 'beneath their class' which is actually a very bigoted and unkind POV. I guess some of them hold out that, even if she wasn't Anastasia, she had to at least be someone of noble birth to spare those who fell for her charade the 'humiliation' of having taken a factory worker into their homes and treated her like royalty.

But as Finneganw has pointed out, there are no other suspects. No one else has ever claimed another person was AA, the only 2 suspects for Anderson's identity were always Franziska Schanzkowska or Anastasia, and now Anastasia has been ruled out. So with the 99.9% matching of Anderson's DNA to Schanzkowska's family, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together and see it adds up to AA being FS. There is absolutely no rational reason for questioning AA being identified as FS, but a few people want to deny that fact to save a little face for having been hoodwinked by a peasant, or maybe even, if her exact identity is allowed to remain a mystery, to leave a crack in the door that she 'might' still be AN after all. This is why we must slam the door shut and lock it.

(for the record, there is no higher probability than 99.9%, it doesn't go to a hundred in determining who someone is, only who they aren't. For example, we have a 100% exclusion that she was not Anastasia. A 99.9% match with FS's family does not even mean there is a .1% chance she was someone else, it means that it doesn't go any higher, for anyone. Funny, the loudmouth guys on those 'baby daddy' shows sometimes only get a 96% match with the child, but you never see them hollering the DNA was switched, wrong, couldn't be right because of class distinctions, etc. And just think, that result directly affects their life, because they're going to be paying child support for the next 18 years! Yet they don't make fools of themselves claiming the DNA was wrong. If they can accept the high probabiltiy match, so should AA supporters.)

Also I think Bookworm is more concerned with sparing the feelings of Kurth and Schweitzer and trying to salvage some small victory for AA's 'side' than having a factual article presented in its best form for a large number of readers who come here looking for the truth. The chance she was anyone random is so astronomically remote it isn't worth confusing the readers by even suggesting such an impossible idea. Aggiebean (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahem...

Sadly, I cannot help my passion for truth. So I am here to state two things:

1) I agree with my former hot-headed opponents in general, and I agree with you totally, Alexius. I wish I'd had the cool head and fair treatment long enough to be heard when I said the exact same things.

2) Which leads me to this one final request since my pleas are being ignored by the Big Talking WikiHeads: I resent being connected to ChatNoir, just because other users persuaded themselves to believe we are one and the same. We are not the same, and it is easily proved. I admitted it freely at Talk:Anna Anderson and here too: I should not even be posting. I'm here for truth but now my honor and identity is at stake. And I also resent the ever-insulting, ever-hostile finneganw and all the bile spewing from finneganw. It is THAT which must cease. [OOPS--logging back into edit to sign]: 75.21.109.14 (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Depp

Thank you!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. AlexiusHoratius 04:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

You'll see this at Talk: Anna Anderson. Rule-breaking or not, I think this is what was needed over there, and you sort of requested this from other editors. There seems to me to be no other fair way of re-working that mess of an entry. Please read on:

"Suggestion for format of re-done entry OK, so nobody's biting now that we seem to have more balance here.

The following is a good suggestion for the entry's new look--it is the proper scholastic & journalistic method:

1. The entry should take the approach of telling what you're about to tell, then tell it, then tell what you've just told. It's an old maxim used for public speeches.

2. We're reporting, not debating, because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Instead of merely chopping the article near the top, let us spell it out only like it is. This is rough, so bear with me: the article states Anna Anderson Manahan was a fraud who was able to sustain her charade for close to 60 years. She should, by rights, have been totally ignored and thrown into an asylum or sanatorium. But somehow, this Anastasia-hope pervaded in the public, and we must cite some sources as to why that happened. That is reporting on history, and offers no judgment. Then we catch up and state science has proved her to be a total fraud, with proper citations.

3. The rule of approximately 2 lines should be used: 2 or 3 lines to state each fact chronologically. Thus follows the approximate 2-citation rule, about 2 or 3 supporting citations for each thing. It practically writes itself.

4. This article does NOT need any more points-of-view, such as the validity of Kurth. I bring up Kurth because I cannot find evidence that his original 1983 book is fraudulent or inaccurate. He cannot be ruled out as a source, or we'd have nothing! The article can state that he is an improperly biased resource today. We all know there is an agenda to totally separate Anna from HIH. That cannot be done, it's unnecessarily revisionist.

Remember, this article deals with the person of Anna Anderson Manahan. It must read like a newspaper report, up-to-date, with facts and sources. NOTHING else should be there. The story is social history which cannot be changed, no matter how much we dislike what occurred in the past. Point is it is all in the past, because science has spoken on this issue.

The locked page, as it is now, is an unholy mess. It is longer than this talk page, and at the bottom, below the quoted sources, we see Anastasia over and over. All that must be taken out of there.

Perhaps an illustrative analogy: let's say People or Time did this as a feature article. What would they do? They would report, and be thorough. They'd be neutral because all the facts are there waiting to be reported. And their article would be a quarter of the length of the present Wikipedia Anna entry.

Remember, there hasn't been anyone like the fraud Anna in modern history--perhaps never in all history. There has to be a compelling article of fact, so there is no doubt she was a fraud and no doubt of the other facts. In this way, she is a bit like Madame Blavatsky. I haven't seen Wikipedia's entry on her, but it may serve as a good template, I don't know....

OK, there's the humble contribution of what this article should be and how it should look. Agreements? Any takers? 75.21.109.14 (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC) OOPS--edited a small typo.75.21.109.14 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)"--END QUOTE FROM MY ENTRY ON THAT PAGE75.21.109.14 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The above is no solution at all. It is in fact a POV fork that avoids reality and proven historical and scientific fact. It belongs in the sandbox. Finneganw 02:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Formal Request

I would like to formally request that you keep a firm eye on the Anna Anderson page now that you have lifted protection. I do hope the rabid Anderson supporters will not return and restart an edit war by vandalising the page with gross factual inaccuracies. Time will tell I guess. Thanks for what you have tried to achieve. Sadly it would appear that no consensus has been reached. It is very hard to achieve this when dealing with a small group of fanatics who choose to ignore reality and wish to remain in fantasyland. Finneganw 06:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, and keep the article watchlisted. As I said in my last post there, my patience concerning further disruption there is pretty much spent. Although I probably won't be personally using the sysop tools there any longer (only uninvolved admins should be blocking and protecting, and at this point I consider myself involved), I won't hesitate to go to the admin's noticeboard to get uninvolved people in there should the old fights start up again.

I'm sorry that I couldn't be of more help. Given my limited knowledge of the subject (and things like DNA) I wasn't sure what more I could do in terms of trying to find common ground between the various parties involved, if there even was a chance that common ground could be found. Usually, content disputes can be solved by compromise, but in some cases, and this looks like it might be one of them, compromise really just isn't very realistic. AlexiusHoratius 06:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes sadly it is not easy to compromise with those who do not wish to accept basic historic and scientific reality. The rabid supporters are like those who would not accept that Germany lost World War 2. They simply are not prepared to accept proven fact. They are a very weird group of people rather like those who believe the world is flat. Thanks for what you have done. I know you have really tried. Time will tell whether it all starts up again. I would like to think it would not, but the responses while the page was closed and the discussion page and yours open for debate did not show any acceptance of reality. in fact some tried to foist their fantasies on to you in a last ditch effort to get their fantasies treated as reality. It is all sadly very bizarre indeed. Finneganw 10:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason that compromise is unrealistic here is that in this case, it would mean giving appeasement concessions to those who support a POV that has been scientifically and historically proven wrong. It would basically amount to letting little kids run the bases without even trying to get them out just so they won't cry, because if they played the right way, they'd lose. (this happened on my street when I was a kid all the time, we had to appease the crybabies in ball or board games and pretend they 'won' so they'd shut up and go away happy) What we have here is a small group of people who want to make those who invested so much in this claimant 'feel better' but that is not reality. This is not a therapy session or a support group. We have a right and a wrong answer. Finneganw and I have all the facts to back up everything we are doing, and that's the right thing to do. It's wrong to put in discredited or misleading info to keep a small group happy at the cost of accuracy in the article. We need to consider that the vast majority of those who look up this article will know nothing about the topic and want to learn from it, so we owe them the honest truth, not games and mollycoddling of the losing 'side.' Isn't that the goal of this site?Aggiebean (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In other words: The real story of Anna Anderson's life cannot be told in order to pacify these two fanatics. One can only wonder why they are so scared of the facts.ChatNoir24 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, firstly, I am not a rabid Anna supporter but a supporter of FAIR truth, and finneganw still hasn't learned a scintilla of manners. Even I learned some. And I want to re-state here that I grow tired of finneganw putting words on the screen in my behalf. I'm almost in full agreement with what they all say, except that NO ONE is balanced concerning Kurth. And I'll tell you why: NO ONE has produced a quote, interview, or other proper current citation that disgraces Kurth's work. He has disgraced himself, yes, so you all hate him. Does that crap need to go into the new entry? And... I grow weary of finnegan's constant baiting and fight-picking. Do we have to keep reading "finneganw's way or the highway", or do we at least agree we'll try out some thoughts on the talk page? We've gotten far, we really have! Will you let finnegan destroy this progress, as he has done in the past by ordering people to the sandbox and dictating terms of history? Not to mention the fact the he keeps pinching my ideas! ;)75.21.109.14 (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it- what discredits much of Kurth's book is that it was based on AA being AN, and being put upon by relatives and denied her true identity, and that turned out to be completely false. It was heavily based on the writings of Harriet Rathlef and Gleb Botkin, two big time supporters who made money off of telling her story and touting her as "Anastasia." The things they say always go opposite of other versions told by detractors, the people who turned out to be RIGHT. Therefore, they are wrong. Another horribly wrong source is "I, Anastasia". It is even possible much of what they wrote was intentionally fictional or heavily embellished to help her cause. So when you have a book that uses so much of these discredited sources, its value as 'fact' in the face of being proven wrong doesn't go too far. It has nothing to do with 'hating' Kurth, no one hates him, we are just annoyed by him and his attitude and refusal to accept reality and feel he is no longer a credible reference on this subject, because his sources are discredited and he is far too emotionally attached to the story to be objective. Those of you (if there are really more than one) who keep saying 'tell me where anything in his book is discredited', well, it happened when AA was proven not to be AN. I could also list a whole bunch of examples, but this is not the place for such trivia."Chat's" above statement proves his lack of ability to see reality, and why he should not be working on this article.Aggiebean (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Frau Rahtlef made 4000 DM off her writings about Anna Anderson, money that was promptly turned over for Anna Anderson's upkeep. Frau Rathlef did not make a penny for herself. Gleb Botkin made money from his writings, what else do you expect an author to do? And I am STILL waiting for you to "discredit" Kurth's writings. It seems that I will have to wait forever for you two ladies to come up with something. (Yes, Finneganw is a woman, she even uses the signature "Sarah" at Annie's newfound website.)ChatNoir24 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat, what 'newfound' site to you mean? My site is not new, updated but not new, and no "Sarah" is there. There is a "Sara" at the OTMA forum I help mod, she's a teenage girl from Portugal. This mess has no business cluttering this person's personal page. I will return to the AA page and tell more about why Rathlef and Botkin should never be used as sources (including in Kurth's book)Aggiebean (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The edit war has started again

Just for the record, ChatNoir24 is back once again and has started an edit war by vandalising the article putting in discredited sources and not following clearly set guidelines to reach consensus before edting. His latest entries display highly irrational behaviour. He is completely incapable when it comes to engaging in discussion or attempting to reach consensus. He has never displayed any interest in doing so. I request that he be banned from editing the article as he only creates extreme POV and gross inaccuracy. There is an extremely long history of such disruptive behaviour stretching back over a number of years. Finneganw 21:55, 13 June 2009

I gave them a final warning on their talk page. AlexiusHoratius 22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Finneganw 00:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A final plea

Alexius, I resent finneganw's constant insistence that I am ChatNoir24 or whatever he calls himself. Finnegan and all the others know who I am. So does Trusilver. So will you, if you don't allow aggiebean's endless paragraphs to stun you into silliness like it did to Trusilver.

You are aware that Trusilver's going soon, partly because of all this? Don't start falling automatically for some of the exaggerations of aggiebean or finneganw. Investigate first, and carefully! My past in no admirable thing, but I am NOT guilty of their accusations. Nor am I ever again going to cite my former username as they have done in the past.

Thus I am pleading the case to you: be careful and thorough about these two and their accusations. By the way, I read your warning to ChatNoir and I'm glad. Personally I'd like to see him kicked off here, because he does a rotten thing and I get the heat for it... but who am I to express such things?75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, to be honest, I'm not too concerned if there is or isn't socking going on, it's more the tendentious editing that I'm worried about, as this is what sets everyone off. AlexiusHoratius 22:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for warning him, and it has stopped him as "ChatNoir24" however 75.21.124.148 is running rampant all over the talk pages and interjecting into already posted things as well. He is completely out of control and is on a wild and irrational rampage. Please, please range block him, he is serving no useful purpose here and is causing much disruption.Aggiebean (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You said it, and so did I: ENOUGH

In a few lines at the Anna talk page, someone has slipped in lines I did not write. Somehow they made it look like my IP address. But I confirm that all the other posts signed with the same IP ARE MINE. The post in question says aggiebean has a simple view of Kurth's book. I have never said that and never will. Someone is using me as a sock puppet, and I think if you're going to go on as a good administrator you'd better get this thing checked out instead of saying you're not interested... It's your job for heaven's sake. I'm not taking the fall for this ChatNoir again. I see aggiebean is screaming for my removal because she doesn't like intellectual debate. Start with both of us and investigate this. My posts may be impatient but they are intellectually honest and I'm not being disruptive, aggiebean is. And since this is the place for accusations, I think aggiebean is sock-puppeteering. My IP fluctuates, mods know that, and soon I'll post with a separate IP address, proof positive.75.21.124.148 (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC) OOPS, back to correct a typo.75.21.124.148 (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place for sockpuppet investigations, WP:SPI is. I don't have checkuser rights, so I can't prove or disprove alleged sockpuppetry. If it's a final resolution that you seek, then sit tight for a few hours, because all this is going to be front and center on the WP:Administrators' noticeboard soon. AlexiusHoratius 01:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know he will never be proven to be a sock for Chat because he uses different IPs, that is not the issue. The problem is he is counterproductive, disruptive, and generally troublesome to any topic or talk page he inhabits. He has no self control and his irrational, abusive, negative rants, vandalism, sneak attacks in the middle of other peoples' posts and long winded attacks have no place in any civil discussion, and nothing he does qualifies as 'intellectual debate' as he states. His history and recorded posts speak for themselves. Check out his reputation on the "Noahidism" page as well. Though he hates it to be brought up, he used to use the name "RevAntonio" and this does match the current set of IPs he's using, along with other IP only posts that trace to the Rockville, IL area. He made such a spectacle of himself, suspended and blocked and rangeblocked under that name and those IPs he demanded to be able to 'vanish' and the mods deleted that account, but he came right back and his behavior has not changed. This is all documented, and you can ask Trusilver for more info. He also openly threatened Trusilver, Finneganw and myself. He has openly called out mods declaring he can never be stopped. It is very clear who is the problem.Aggiebean (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please get this to your recommended sockpuppetry page

Oh, it will never cease and after this, right after this post, I'm not coming anywhere near Wikipedia anymore.

I am former user RevAntonio and I am Most Reverend Antonio Hernandez--yes, ask Trusilver because Trusilver, who is in some trouble too, knows who I am and at least he won't lie.

Now I want to post here what is presently at Talk:Anna Anderson so you get a handle on what aggiebean does over there, and how I try to reason with her. That is, until she insults me and tries to call me into fighting. Very clever, that one. But it won't work, I think you know that by now. Below is the precise copy:

THIS IS THE FAKE ENTRY SOMEHOW SIGNED WITH MY IP ADDRESS AT TALK:ANNA ANDERSON. IT IS THE ONLY ONE I CAN FIND THAT IS NOT MY POST:

Aggie, this is also not the Aggiebean discussion Forum or the I-Know-Why-Kurth's-Book-is-False Forum! Can't you people understand anything?! Do you really think you're helping here by putting your simple views of Kurth's book in the posts? Put reliable sources.75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

NOW PLEASE READ THE EXCHANGE THERE THAT FOLLOWED MY LAST POST:

[THIS IS ME]: OK, I'll say it loud and proud: to HELL with Kurth Before I get steamrolled by aggiebean and possibly ChatNoir, I agree that everything written by Kurth is a lie and unusable as a source. I agree that it should either be worded as I have just worded it; again, I agree that Kurth be omitted due to his BOOK and present attitudes being in question. Does that make everyone happy? Now, I will state here that aggiebean has been reported at the admin's talk page for false accusations and for sock puppetry. Sorry, if you're going to come after me like that again, I'll defend myself again. Here's some proof, note it:75.21.124.148 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[THIS IS AGGIEBEAN'S HOUNDING REPLY]: I am not the only person who thinks you're a sock and I am not afraid of your accusations since there is no way to prove you are a sock since few trolls and aliases use the same IP, at least once they find out what one is. Your IP means nothing to me, I have said many times before as mod on other forums it's not the IP that gives a person away but their identical rhetoric and behavior. I have known people to carry 3 ISPs, use IP bounce and/or hide programs, use dialup connections from other states, etc. It does not prove if you are or are not a sock. But this has no place on the AA page if you have junk like this to say put it on my page(or better yet don't put it anywhere). Your imput on this site is unnecessary, unproductive and disruptive.Aggiebean (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[MY REPLY TO HER]: Aggie, and whatever other it is who "believes I'm a sock", this identity question is never going to be anything except what YOU want it to be, no answer good except yours. But I understand you, I understand why you would be angry with me and confused as to who I am. THE MODS ARE NOT, don't think the info's fake just because you were not allowed into the loop. They know who I am, and who I am not.

My posts are impatient, they are blunt and I made it clear when I 'interjected' posts between yours--something you used to love doing. So don't point accusing fingers at me. And I've made it clear there is ONE specific post here not mine. It is the post that accuses you of a simple attitude toward Kurth's book. I've told you all what I am willing to agree to regarding his fraudulent book. Take it or leave it.

Why, why do you insist on all this? I know why. My recommendations don't fit your strange opinion about yourself and your knowledge of this subject. For some reason you have become so hateful and paranoid that YOu are the one who will never allow consensus here. Just know that your efforts against me will not be so easy this time around, because I am innocent of your charges.

You know, there was a man, a loser who somehow found a little platform. He took this and ranted, and no one else could rant except him--unless he allowed a "sock puppet" to rant in his place. Soon he ran out of people to silence, as he had already silenced everyone, so he began searching for more people to silence, and began inventing enemies. He might have fit right here on this talk page. He was Adolph Hitler.75.21.124.148 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC) END COPY OF POSTS

As you can see, aggiebean has a history of tolerating only two bullies: aggiebean and her clear sock puppet or co-conspirator finneganw. Note that she now wants to be sure I am NOT proved to be who I am; she wants the endless opportunity to accuse me of sock-puppetry without the hassles to her. My history is no proud one; at least I don't pretend to be a saint as a. & f. always do. You know who I am, and you know approximately where I am located. You will get no more than that. But I have been honest and I have tried. Thanks, Alexius, for being up front about your inability to handle this situation and sending it 'up the line'. I doubt it'll benefit anybody.75.21.124.148 (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Anna Anderson. Please direct any further comments there. For my part, I'm basically done with trying to deal with this dispute. I'm sure other admins will be along in a short while to pick up the slack. AlexiusHoratius 04:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexius, I am aggrieved by the present ennui at the admins' notice board. I don't know how they read those notices, but since I posted a brief statement there, I was as usual tailed by aggiebean and finneganw. As you may have seen, they like to leave a trail of wikiblood wherever they can. Now ChatNoir24 has joined them. We know we can post there, but aggiebean is really going to town with her delusions about being a scholar on the subject of the article in question. We had almost reached concensus until aggiebean and her pet finneganw started insulting and fighting all over again. Why did you appear at that talk page, only to do nothing? Don't you think that with about a four year history, they'd have relieved that place of the present mess? So, this is wikipedia at work, eh, preserving its "encyclopedic" standards. Lies. I am only sorry you got immersed in this mess. Actually I came to ask one thing: can you not do something further to have this properly investigated, such as a request for mediation or even deletion of the article as it stands??75.21.124.148 (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You can file a WP:Request for comment to try and get more opinions on the article, and if that doesn't go anywhere, and it probably won't, you can file a WP:Request for arbitration. AlexiusHoratius 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Cook Three Voyages 59.png

Hi, could you please tell me why "Jon Platek" is credited in the image page? The image is tagged as problematic on Commons (probably for dumb reaons), and I'd like to clear things out in a clean way. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The image got tagged automatically after I uploaded a new version without knowing that uploading a new version wiped out the older licenses. (I have since replaced the licenses, but wasn't sure how things are done on commons about users removing taggings on their own uploads.) To answer your main question, Jon Platek and AlexiusHoratius are the same person, the latter being my nom de plume. I guess it was vanity that made me credit what will probably be my most lasting contribution to the encyclopedia to my real name. AlexiusHoratius 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you want your real name to stay attached to your login in the image page? --Eusebius (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me if it remains on there, but go ahead and remove it or change the credit to AlexiusHoratius if it is causing legal/technical difficulties with the self-made license. AlexiusHoratius 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No pb with your real name. It's just that it should be attached to a login to be consistent with the "own work" claim, otherwise an OTRS authorization is needed to make the link. I update the image page accordingly. --Eusebius (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Famous Floridians

Dear Alexius:

Thank you for your welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you are against my list of Famous Floridians. Of course, I realized that it was not exhaustive, but few things are. I made certain, however, that every name had a link to an article in Wikipedia on that person which verified his or her significant connection to Florida. That's not enough of a reference? The list can always be expanded by others who have a name to add. Could the list get long? Sure. So what?

My biggest argument for this section is that it's INTERESTING. I am a high school teacher, and I know that reading about the native fauna and flora of the state is not going to be at all memorable to most of the people (75% of whom are not college graduates), who peruse this article. What's wrong with adding something fun to it? Many of the articles in Wikipedia have sections called "popular culture," which is mostly trivia. I happen to like trivia however, and so do most people. I would say that many people visit this site because they like reading about things that have no impact on their lives.

May I respectfully assert that you are being slightly too pedantic about this. I appeal to the Grand Poobahs of Wikipedia to let this section in!

Stacy CuthbertsonStacy511 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My problem isn't so much with the references - I'm sure that most of the more famous people have sources saying that they're from Florida. My issue with the list is mostly from the standpoint that raw lists that do not really give any sort of context - in other words, the list doesn't explain why so-and-so being from Florida is important enough to mention on the Florida article - should generally be avoided. There are many possible lists to include on that article that some readers would find interesting - raw lists of colleges, beaches, former governors, and best bars to go to while on Spring Break, but the article would quickly get too large and cumbersome. On articles about large, more general topics, such as the Florida article, it is best to explain in prose the most important aspects, and provide links to more specific information. As Horologium said on the Florida talk page, the article could have a link to a famous natives list, but more specific information like that should only be linked to, rather than included on the article. Another thing to keep in mind is that although the list may start off as small, (say, only a dozen or so of the most famous people) the list would quickly grow out of control, and it's difficult to try to get a consensus on what should stay and what should go. AlexiusHoratius 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC: socionics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionics Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't moderate others' userpages for vandalism.

This is pretty old, but I just noticed it, because I never look at the history page of my userpage.

A long time ago, you reverted some vandalism on my userpage here. [1]

Please don't do that again or to other people. Even if it's mischievous, if the person doesn't like it, the user themselves can simply remove it. I don't want to miss out on seeing something amusing because somebody removed vandalism from my userpage without telling me. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my nearly 3 years and several hundred user page reverts, you're the first person who has ever asked me not to revert vandalism on their userpage, so it's not really as though I was outside standard operating procedure on that revert. You can run your own page the way you want to run it, I guess, so I won't be making any more vandalism reversions on it. However, as most of our editors (and myself) do not appreciate having their user pages vandalized (I've seen everything from blanking to having user pages say that the user is a proud pedophile), I shall continue to revert vandalism on other users' pages as I always have, unless of course someone specifically asks me not to. AlexiusHoratius 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your quick response to my template screw-up on Camden East; looks good now! Peace and Passion (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem - templates can be tricky at times; while some will let you put a reference directly behind the figure, that one looks like it wouldn't. If that happens, you should usually find a "footnotes" option or something like that in the template. AlexiusHoratius 07:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I was writing in wrong Firefox tab for another wikipedia and accidentally I saved the edition. I just wanted to copy interwikis from source code. Sorry. --Master (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I should have assumed it may have been a mistake rather than straight vandalism, and I probably shouldn't have just thrown a vandalism template at you like that. (Although you probably aren't new to the Wikipedias in other languages, I went ahead and replaced the warning on your talk page with a welcome message.) AlexiusHoratius 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I also am sorry i was just seeing what i could do and have some fun and i didn't know were the sand box was so yeah but, you've gotta admit the things i wrote were funny at the time can you post me a link for sand box and if im not supposed to do this like i am sorry umm time 5:08 aest from 11nniuq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11nniuq (talk • contribs) 07:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the sandbox if you would like to do test edits there. AlexiusHoratius 07:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

dude thanks and again sorry and who ever's page i wrecked i owe an apology as well and now looking back at what i wrote it was not funny 11nniuq (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Che cosa ho fatto di sbagliato?

Lei parla italiano? Io parlo solo italiano. Non so cosa ho fatto di sbagliato.174.131.133.56 (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't speak Italian (this is the English Wikipedia, and the message I gave you was, partly, because your addition was not in English). If you wish to contribute in Italian, please use the Italian Wikipedia. AlexiusHoratius 03:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate you fixing my talk page, and warning the user, before I even saw it! -- Pakaran 07:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem - nice work today, by the way - I think you've beaten my to about 20 reverts this evening. AlexiusHoratius 07:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Honestly, using WP:HUGGLE is almost cheating. Going to the next suspect diff (pre-downloaded, so you don't have to wait) is one keypress. Reverting the present diff and issuing the next warning (and being prompted to block if they already have a level 4 warning) is another one. -- Pakaran 07:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always resisted using Huggle for some reason, but now it's almost impossible to do recent changes patrol without it, unless one wants to wait until the wee hours. I suppose I'll get it someday - at this point, I kind of feel like the old man who refuses to get a cell phone or a remote control. AlexiusHoratius 07:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. When I became a sysop, I want to say there were a few edits per minute, and opening the diffs in new tabs worked just fine. -- Pakaran 07:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably end up getting it at some point, I'm just lazy I guess. The blocking option you spoke of sounds cool (I haven't blocked enough users to have memorized all of the message templates for it, so when I do end up blocking someone, it takes me a few minutes of running back to my sandbox for the talk page code.) By the way, I just looked at your userpage, and my sister went to grad school at Buffalo, not in the same field as you, though. AlexiusHoratius 07:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Phagocyte

Why do you keep reverting my changes to the spelling of "liter" ? It is not a matter of regional spelling variation - there is a globally acknowledged *official* spelling which is "litre" - only the US spells it differently, and Phagocytes are not a US topic. Check out the Wikipedia article on "litre" if you want confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.160.130 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The English language doesn't have "official" spellings when it comes to regional varieties; some UN group might spell it this way, or some international scientific group might spell it that way, but there isn't an "official" spelling. (Just as one will often see Americans correcting "typos" featuring British spelling on Wikipedia, which is incorrect, so too does one often see editors changing a spelling like this due to the belief that theirs is the "official" or globally recognized standard, which is also incorrect.) The basic idea behind WP:ENGVAR, which is only a guideline but a good one to follow so that chaos doesn't break out, is that spellings should only be changed for two reasons: to make an article's spelling style uniform when it isn't uniform, or if there is a strong national connection to a topic. Since there is, like you say, no strong national connection for this topic, then there is no reason to change the spelling from that which it was written in, which in this case is American English. Also, for what it's worth, the spelling isn't exactly "global", considering the Spanish spell it "litro" and the Germans spell it "liter", and those are only the first two languages that I checked. AlexiusHoratius 19:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Diocesan maps

Really neat maps! Thanks! Student7 (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - so far I've gotten through the Northeast, Midwest and Florida, and now that I've worked out the teething issues on my map-making system, I'm hoping to be able to make and upload about a province-worth a day or so. AlexiusHoratius 13:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Please reference this IP address. It seems this IP has received multiple warnings about vandalism since 2007. This address is a public system based on little rock air force base. Unfortunately some people here think it is all well and good to make bad posts to various pages on this site. Please keep in mind that this is a publicly routed IP for hundreds of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.3.122.49 (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not really sure what you mean by "reference this IP". The warnings the IP has recieved are standard operating procedure for dealing with vandalism, the vandalism hasn't been heavy enough to warrant a block, and your talk page already has a "WHOIS" template on it, showing editors where the IP originates and letting them know that it is used by a large number of people. AlexiusHoratius 22:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hello, I notice that you also mediate at WP:RPP and would appreciate your opinion here, as I feel that the initial reviewer did not read the nomination correctly. Thanks, DJ 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC).

I've responded at RFPP - as I said there, I'm going to go with the original reviewing admin's opinion, at least for now, but wouldn't oppose a shorter period of protection in the future if the vandalism picks up again. AlexiusHoratius 19:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Map of Indianapolis Archdiocese

Since you claimed copyright over the map, I thought I should get your permission about making a slight modification to it. I plan to add Spencer County's Harrison Township to the red jurisdiction area, since in error I included it in my Evansville Diocese Map and have since removed it. If you want the modification, see my new Map on the Roman Catholic Diocese of Evansville Page. Rhatsa26X (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's cool, go ahead and correct it if you want. (I checked on the website of the Archdiocese after I saw your message, and it says the same thing that you did regarding the township). AlexiusHoratius 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I went ahead and did it myself. (I just kind of eyeballed it going off of your map this time, but it should be OK as it's zoomed out pretty far - let me know if there are any other problems or modifications that need to be made.) AlexiusHoratius 01:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Got a question for ya. Where did you get the map you used in this image? I would like to use it. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the original blank one from Commons. (There are others on there as well under Category:Blank maps of the United States, but I found that having the county outlines on there worked well.) Thanks for bringing that up, by the way, as I seem to have had the bad habit of leaving off the source map locations on my earlier uploads. AlexiusHoratius 11:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem and Thanks :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)