User talk:Bookworm857158367

Archives

User talk:Bookworm857158367/Archive 1

I'm not going to correct the title of the track again, since you'll obviously just keep changing it back to the incorrect "Michelle Ma Belle". But I wouldn't mind if you could give me a reason why you keep doing so...

Hello Bookworm, probably you wanted to create your archive at User_talk:Bookworm857158367/Archive 1. Regards --Oxymoron⁸³ 23:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to delete your now created archive, so that you are able to move Talk:Bookworm857158367/Archive 1 there, this will preserves the page history at the proper place? Regards --Oxymoron⁸³ 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think it's now how you wanted it in the first place :) --Oxymoron⁸³ 01:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I undid your clearing on the next update, but I was just beginning to credit the articles from the round that you removed. I'm done crediting now, so you can add the next update if you wish. Royalbroil 06:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It made it in. See this edit. I suppose you're on one of the US time zones, so it probably was added and replaced while you were asleep (it has happened to me, too). Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• actually, i don't think that's the case - if it were, those articles would all be appearing in the DYK archive by now, and they're not. J. Van Meter (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I might have forgotten to add them to the archive, then. Will do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. The update after me was done by another admin who probably didn't realize the hooks hadn't been archived (this is done manually, not automatically). So, believe me, they were on the main page all right (you can review the history at T:DYK), just during the early morning hours US time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you moved El Buscón from here to here, you added a space after the ellipsis. That is, "...that" became "... that". Although there is no formal rule about a space after an ellipsis, there is an informal standard, and we get complaints at WP:ERRORS when we forget. I suppose it would be OK if all the hooks had a space after the ellipsis, but adding the space just once in a while is what draws complaints. I removed the space. I also removed similar spaces on the Main Page a few hours ago (but I didn't look to see who inserted them). Art LaPella (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Susy Clemens, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the preliminary report of 22 January 2008 is based on credible scientific analysis of the remains of Alexis and Anastasia/Marie. I would suggest that this information remain undisturbed until the release of the final details later this year. I hope you will respect this. Already there has been an attempt by some person to remove such details. They need to realise removing verified information is not acceptable. I hope you will support this whatever your feelings may be on Anna Anderson. Finneganw 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to thank you, Bookworm, for your revised edits to the preliminary report which are actually verifiable. Just to address the point made above, the portion I was attempting to delete was a violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL section 3, dealing with future history, because the section included speculation as to the meaning of the results. --Veritas (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding stuff to the update. Would you like to help out with the notifications (the real pain of this ... grrr)? Daniel Case (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. If I go and update the main page, would you be able to handle the credits? I don't have time to do both today. Thanks, Wizardman 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, update's been done. Thanks for helping out. Wizardman 15:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you were quick ... I was trying to help but you got there first Victuallers (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catherine Dolgorukov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grand Duchess Alexandra Alexandrovna of Russia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bookworm! Thanks so much for your contribution. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few months late perhaps, congradulations on getting Calvin Coolidge featured. Cheers, Basketballone10 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I interfered with your modification of Elizabeth Siddal, I thought you had already finished it. Now I understand how want to have the layout of the references. Best regards --Cyfal (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Snezana (name), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Snezana (name). скоморохъ 13:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Soviet autopsy report to be found? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

are you deleting some dyk candidates from the list? Editorofthewiki 03:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries would probably clear up this confusion. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking some time to look at the article. Bwwm (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antonietta Meo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations and keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Rais, Martyr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly made you think that an article about an Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic saint, with a reference provided, is not notable? --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what i would like to call a border borderline case. Personally i doubt that the WP:BIO criteria are met, since the references provided for this article are not exactly Neutral. Then again, i merely tagging pages for CSD, by which rationale its better to tag one page extra, then one page to little. In fact, i got to admit that i was interested in what the action of the reviewing administrator would be, as i know of no specific ruling for these cases(If a tag is rejected, the history always sites what rules apply). Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• After Re-Reading the article, i removed the speedy tag. There is simply no way this is warranted in its current form. Sorry for the trouble! Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Russian barnstar
		For your outstanding work on adding valuable content related to late 19th/early 20th century Russian biographies and any other biographies which appeared in DYK's. The Bald One is proud of you. Keep it up! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Metrophanes, Chi Sung, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 04:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through various CSI history pages to try and scoop out a vandal who's been hitting alot of the character pages and on the Greg Sanders page I saw that you made a number of edits to revert "Gregory" back to "Greg". If I recall correctly, in "The Ultimate CSI" his name is printed as Gregory. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's what it says. I'm going to check out the book and revert it back if it is indeed "Gregory". Please post any comments concerning this subject on my talk page. Yours truly, Broadway4life155 (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latest culprit, 68.etc., whose vandalism you have thankfully reverted, has been warned about his/her behaviour previously. It would appear it is time for them to be blocked as a user for a time as they don't get the message. What do you think Bookworm? Finngeanw 05:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why "The Children's Hour" is so important that you deem it necessary to include it in the lede? As the lede is supposed to sum up the article, the article should mention this poem to merit inclusion in the lede. It does not... I'd also suggest that three works cover enough ground in that opening paragraph and, it seems to me, the most well-known works are the best option. I'm having a hard time seeing why you want to push for it so much and I don't want to be involved with an edit war, so I figured I'd ask. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll excuse my bias as I'm not familiar with the poem (and I'm sorta protective of the article because it took substantial work to get it to GA status). Might I recommend we find a way to mention it specifically in the body of the article? Even if not in the lede, it does seem to merit some kind of mention in the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one tend to think of "The Skeleton in Armor" pretty quickly when I think of Longfellow. But, maybe our exposure to him has changed over generations? To answer your question, I currently wear neither of those hats! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your new reference, and couldn't find any reference to "murder" in it, only a reference to an "executioner". So I couldn't use your preferred hook. I promoted the article with your other hook instead. If there'd been more time, we might have discussed it some more, but in my experience once a hook is approved it tends to get used, and I figured you'd like to have your article featured in the number one spot, which would not be assured if I left it to someone else. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allegra Byron, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bookworm857158367, you know I love this article, always have. Sadly I don't think Allegra Byron was eligible for DYK because it would have had to be a five-fold expansion. I'll leave a note at DYK or main page. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're okay! Somebody at DYK goofed; only one other person noticed afterwards. Good luck to you on your articles. I still remember from WikiProject Biography. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claire Clairmont, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:1916paley.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

"Acknowledged" by who? Certainly not by him, nor by most historians, i would have thought. Like the early medieval Scottish King nicknamed the Black, a great pile of speculation has been loaded onto a nickname. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt i will some time - there is one, maybe more, modern historian who has taken the nickname/gossip seiously, and a whole pile of black studies and other writers who have followed up on him, but I don't think most specialist Renaissance historians are very convinced. The portraits are supposed to be prime evidence, and they aren't terribly convincing, are they? Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this guy (quoted by an opponent on one of your refs) certainly is an art historian:"In the only reference to the Duke's color in the entire 173-page catalogue of the Philadelphia exhibit, Karl Strehlke, the curator and organizer writes, "Some scholars have claimed that Alessandro's mother was a North African slave. This cannot be confirmed, however, and the text of a letter that she wrote to her son in 1529 suggests that she was an Italian peasant from Lazio." " It is misleading to treat the matter as generally accepted. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied it all to the article talk page. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy as it is for now, & may research it more some time later. Thanks for the change! Of course Moorish opens a whole new load of issues itself.... Ludovico Sforza "il Moro" is another of these. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bia de' Medici, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I never heard of death masks before - it's interesting! --Royalbroil 15:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giulia de' Medici, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:1916paley.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I have several possible edits for the Lili Dehn page, but the most important one is that the picture displayed... is not her.

I would be happy to send you severl picture of her. She is the other woman other than the tsarina in that picture from which you excerpted the picture. Gfulda (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your helpful additions to name articles, and am inviting you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy, which is seeking to improve the consistency and quality of articles about human names.

I note that you added information on the name to Amalia, which is a disambiguation page. As there is a separate article about this name, Amalia (given name), this info is not needed there as well, especially not the category, so I have reverted those two edits. There is some recent discussion and guidance about such edits at the end of the project talk page.

Keep up the good work! - Fayenatic (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious about why you undid my change about the DNA testing results and then added back the same information. Was it a problem in form that I need to address? I have no problem with the final result, since it seems identical to what I added. Rknasc (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you helped fix up the Florence (name) article and I thought you might be interested in helping out the Anthroponymy wikiproject. The project is still in its infancy and could use all the help it can get. Remember (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, you already are a member. Well, thanks for joining and keep up the hard work!!!

It's normal that a nominator of a page move add their own view:

Support as nominator

This isn't a vote (since people have to give justifications), but it does allow a closing administrator to quickly see if there is a consensus. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Aidan rhyming trend, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reference, which does not imply notability. In my view, the fact that more people are calling their children Aidan, or something that sounds like Aidan, is not deserving of an encyclopaedia article. As you objected to the prod, I shall take this to AFD. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you object to the AFD, but I'm not the only who has seen fit to delete this before, and I think a community discussion is the best way to settle this. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All further discussion would probably best be carried out over at the AFD. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking my opinion. I recommend making a table of the statistics, and merging the article into Aidan. The rhyming name articles should then have a link to that section in Aidan.
As for the significance of the phenomenon: just because one observer called it a millenial megatrend doesn't make it so. I heard a famous journalist explain his job as "first select, then exaggerate." - Fayenatic (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note of support about the Aidan rhyming trend article. I am disappointed that so many people seem to think it deserves immediate deletion. They seem to have a very different view of what "encyclopaedic" means. When people delete my content and tell me it is un-encyclopaedic, I find it maddening. Don't let them get you down. You've got a wheen of Barnstars to prove what great work you do. Preacherdoc (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's gone. Them's the breaks, I guess. Virtual backslaps to you in abundance. Preacherdoc (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read that. You don't need to post on my talk page so often. Charles 02:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your way is NOT how it is done on Wikipedia. Read WP:OWN as suggested before trying to assert ownership over article content with what you think is "right". The fact of the matter is Nicholas II is not first referred to as Nikolai II, regardless of what you think. I dare you to go change that article lest you automatically abandon that argument. Charles 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bookworm. What do you think about h in the spelling of this family's name? --Worobiew (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of most popular given names for twins in the United States, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular given names for twins in the United States. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [1] and [2]. --Law Lord (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, get over it. Don't come to people's pages being nasty, Law Lord, and expect to be received warmly. Good day, Bookworm. Charles 17:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Anna Demidova.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Botkinlast.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you meant AD, not BC. I changed it. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is not the place to post this, but I do not know how to get in touch with the one whom I presume has edited this site. I have in my possession the sealed document attesting to the date of Ryan's consecration as a bishop, and want it placed here.. How do I do it?

When I mentioned that I have the document in my possession, this statement was removed. Well, how to I get a scanned document onto the Wikipedia Site?

+Dennis McCormack

User:Awadewit and I have at last put Mary Shelley up for Peer Review. I would appreciate your comments, if you have time, as I know you are interested in the subject. We're hoping to go for FAC, all being well. (As I am interested in Claire Clairmont, I made sure she was fairly treated, unlike in some of the biographies of Mary Shelley.) qp10qp (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been established in Yakov Yurovsky's talk page that he was not a murderer. He acted legally and remained a senior Soviet official until his death. --81.77.90.237 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist in your so-called revisions to the Anna Anderson page. You are not improving it in the slightest. What you have been doing is removing verifiable quotes. That is not the wikipedia way. In fact it could be seen quite clearly as vandalism. In fact what you are doing is revealing yourself clearly as a pro-Anna Anderson fanatic removing information that clearly shows she was a total fraud. I had thought much better of you. Finneganw, 12.01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Or how could you forget!!? I haven't been around too much lately, but wow you have. You progressed so fast and you were so proficient. Go write a book already! Stubbleboy (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bookworm - May I nominate you as an admin?? Stubbleboy (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators don't remove verified information, to suit an unexplained agenda, in contravention of wikipedia policy on a regular basis. Finneganw 12.21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know, Finneganw (talk · contribs) reverted your edit again, which involved you reverting that user's edit. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, Tsarevich is a title used for any son of the Tsar, while Tsesarevich is a substantive title used only for the eldest son of the Tsar, and that's what Alexei was. Alexei, Tsarevich of Russia is as wrong as Charles, Prince of the United Kingdom. It should be either Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia or Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsesarevich of Russia (the other option follows Wikipedia's naming conventions). Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for moving the page with discussion. I thought that users intended to distinguish his status as heir by moving the article to X, Title of Y. If you disagree with using Tsesarevich, then I propose Grand Duke Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia since his sisters are Grand Duchess X of Y. Surtsicna (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then move him to Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia! Just get rid of the current title, which is the most inappropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot go by the most familiar name if that name is factually inaccurate. Princess Diana is the most familiar name for Lady Diana Spencer, yet we cannot call her Princess Diana because she was princess by marriage - thus Princess Charles. 'Name, Title of Place' is format used for substantive titles and tsarevich is not a substantive title (another example is Prince William of Wales, who cannot be called William, Prince of Wales). That article needs to be moved immediately either to Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia or Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsesarevich of Russia. Surtsicna (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was TOTALLY CONTSRUCTIVE YOU DIMWIT and It's true so shut up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonne Nuit Bijou (talk • contribs) 02:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privet. You are receiving this message as you were listed on the membership list of WP:RUSSIA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members. Recent times has seen minimal activity within WikiProject Russia, and there is an attempt to re-invigorate the project and have it become more organised into a fully-fledge functioning project, with the aim of increasing the quality of Russia-related articles across English wikipedia.

As we don't know which listed members are active within the project and Russia-related article, all listed members are receiving this message, and are requested to re-affirm their active status on Russia-related article by re-adding their username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members by adding:

# {{User|YOURUSERNAME}}

to the membership list. You may also like to place {{User Russian Project}} on your userpage, as this will also place you in Category:WikiProject Russia members.

There is also an active proposal on the creation of a single WP:RUSSIA project. The proposal can be viewed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project, and your comments and suggestions are welcomed and encouraged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal.

We all look forward to your continued support of WP:RUSSIA and any comments you may have on the proposal. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Romanovicon.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bookworm857158367. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Anna Anderson. Thank you. Cenarium ^Talk 02:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected these because they're only notable as the parents of Virginia Dare, and all the content in both articles which isn't already duplicated in other articles amounts to about three sentences - see Virginia Dare#Parents. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your redirection of these articles, which should have been discussed on the talk page first. Eleanor Dare was the subject of the Eleanor Dare Stones back in the 1940s; there's an ongoing discussion about the ancestry and genealogy of Ananias Dare. Do not redirect them again without consensus, please. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the discussion about the ancestry and genealogy of Ananias Dare? 66.152.166.101 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your reasons for reverting my image change on Mary (given name) with a clear rationale. I had discussed that on the talk page. Else I will have to revert your change. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did not say the art in itself was wrong, for there is very little wrong or right in art. But that the image did not convey reverence, as the caption suggested. So there is an inconsistency.

And your statement that "I prefer it" seems to imply that others need to follow your personal tastes - not a Wikipedia policy really. But it is not really a question of taste but logic here. I am not attached to the Boticelli, but think the image and the caption should match. My suggestion: Please find another image yourself on commons that matches the caption by implying reverence and use that. Then the inconsistency will vanish. Else I can try several images. I have seen that you like to do reverts elsewhere, but let us not make this world war 4, and arrive at a peaceful resolution by your selecting another image that you feel works, but also matches the caption. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will follow the suggestion you made on my talk page. Keep the Rosetti image on the page, but attach the Boticelli to the infobox text that says reverence. Thank you for being cooperative on this issue. History2007 (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History2007 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you created an article on Maria Rasputin. Was Maria's birthdate of 27 March in the Old Style or New Style? Thank you.--jeanne (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Don't template the regulars.

I may have made a mistake, but getting {{uw-vandalism1}} on the talk page after four years of serving Wikipedia is terribly insulting. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is to notify you as the primary editor that as part of the GA Sweeps the article, Maria Rasputin has been reassessed and found to need some work to maintain its GA status. The reassessment can be found here. Any questions or concerns can be posted on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope you will have the sense to avoid further vandalising the Anna Anderson page placing in inaccurate information and discredited sources. You should be aware that wikipedia does not support the inclusion of discredited material in the form of references. It is fact that Anderson was not Grand Duchess Anastasia. The discredited works of Rathlef, Kurth and Botkin have no place at wikipedia. They have all been proven fraudulent. If you wish to be an obsessive Anderson supporter, please use the sandbox. Finneganw 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no 'controversy' over whether or not she was FS. Major news agencies such as AP and UPI and their affiliates all state as a fact in their reporting that she was FS. If this were not a steady fact they would not/could not do that. The scientists who worked on the original DNA testing have said that as the years went by they were more certain, not less, that AA was indeed FS. All there is on the 'other side' is a few people who just can't accept that a poor person passed herself off as a rich person, but that is nothing to go on scientifically to challenge the DNA. I know some don't want to believe their relatives were tricked by a peasant, or that they themselves were, but it did happen. It was a mixture of human error and wishful thinking blinding them to obvious negative factors, this is evident in the fact that the younger generation of some of the supporters did not accept her as their parents had, most famously Dmitri Leuchtenberg and Gerta von Kleist. This shows that the parents, who were more clinging to and emotionally tied to the old ways and days, were more easily led to believe something they wanted so badly to be true. Another factor is that she had a very bad attitude and yelled all the time. People who wanted to believe this took it as her 'regal haughtiness' and if she misbehaved it was because she was 'traumatized' by 'Ekaterinburg.' FS, being a mentally deranged and injured person anway, fell right into the mold since she had scars and had been disturbed psychologically. We also cannot rule out the possibility that some who claimed to believe her may have only been helping her for a cut of the alleged fortune. But the bottom line is, we can't state in a historically accurate article that there is some question she may not be FS, because that would mean either some people believe the 0.001% chance she wasn't, or they believe the DNA was wrong/tampered with, which falls into the realm of conspiracy theories. Since there is no evidence or other suspect to challenge the overwhelming proof that she was FS, it should stand in the article that she was. Even adding 'some supporters question' only makes those supporters look like loonies to those who read the article. Anyway, the ending to this is coming soon. I read online that a new book is coming out next year with much new information recently discovered that will explain everything about her story and prove she was FS.Aggiebean (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes won't Kurth just hate that one! It will be so easy to deal with it all as the evidence is plain for all to see. I guess Kurth's discredited book won't even fetch 2 cents at amazon.com then. Finneganw 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I can't wait. I don't know for sure what all is all in the book, but it appears someone finally got the Schanzkowska family to talk, revealing old family secrets, letters and photos that unmistakeably tie AA to her true identity as FS. They probably also have Berenberg-Gossler's papers and manuscript he was writing at the time of his death. They likely have much more than we ever realized was out there. I always thought the info would have been there all along, but unfortunately those who have written about AA have been on her side and would not tell things that go against her. It's nice to finally know someone is on the case who will expose her as FS once and for all.Aggiebean (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message on my page-Did you ignore what Finneganw showed you that the mod told us? He said a lot of things are written by a lot of people but if they are discredited and proven to be wrong by other sources, they are not welcome in the article and cannot be used. This means we have a right to remove anything from Kurth's book that is sourced from Rathlef or Botkin since they are both now totally discredited.

In case you missed it here is the rule

You should read the following carefully as it comes from the Anna Anderson discussion page from Trusilver :

I will give one opinion on this and allow it to be interpreted as you will: Every person that achieves any form of celebrity status during their lifetime will eventually (especially after they are dead and can't pursue claims of libel) have something written about them that is patently false and easily provable as such. Fringe authors have repeatedly written books detailing life events of famous historical figures that conflict with the writings of others. In these situations, it has been past Wikipedia practice to not lend weight to that which can be easily disproven. Not every opinion is equal and Wikipedia does not have any obligation to give equal weight to all sides of an obviously lopsided disagreement of fact. That being said, I'm going to to open an RfC today for this article (bear with me, I'm busy today) and perhaps we will get some other opinions. Trusilver 16:48, 30 AAggiebean (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, lecturing an editor whom Trusilver asked to take over at Anna Anderson! And who is it not listening to Trusilver's directions? Want to take another sock at sock-puppetry? How about copying and pasting Trusilver's other remarks? Don't fall for this claptrap, Bookworm!76.195.94.220 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was before Trusilver worked out what you were up to Bookworm; pushing inaccurate and discredited sources. Finneganw 12:23, 11 June 2009

I would really like to know, why are you so against her being ID'd as FS? If news stories take it for granted and write it as a fact, if everyone except AA supporters accept it, why is it even an issue? You may like to add 'according to her supporters' but I hope you know that now makes them look like loonies. I know you feel sorry for Kurth and Schweitzer and you want to try to salvage something for them to hang onto but they too need to face reality. The evidence is so overwhelming that she is FS it's wrong to mislead readers by saying she might not have been. Please tell me, who was she then? FS and AA were always the only two suspects. What happened to FS? She was never heard from again after AA showed up. They were always the same person! I know some of the supporters don't want to feel like fools for being tricked by a peasant, but that is exactly what happened. Their wishful thinking and excuses did it for them. You can see from the hovel and squalor she ended up living in of her own choice, both in Germany and the US, that she was certainly not very high class! All the claims of her 'royal deportment' and 'regal bearing' are contradicted by the way she acted and lived. Obviously, some people just saw what they chose to see, and made excuses for the rest. They knew she acted very vulgar and crude, but they wrote it off to being 'traumatized.' Maybe she put on a good act at a few cotillions, many actresses do. But you know, the real Anastasia was a tomboy and by the time she was old enough for social functions the war had stopped them, so playing the cultured princess was even out of character for the real Anastasia. Franziska's gig is up. I'm sorry it's so disappointing to you and your heroes that you can't at least say she was nobility, but that is not the truth. Please don't let your sympathy for Kurth and Schweitzer get in the way of your rationality. Let's do the article right.Aggiebean (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with several things you put in my talk page: 1. The DNA- since the time of the 1994 tests, the probability of her being FS has increased greatly. I could show you the long details if you are interested. All the evidence points to FS. It's wrong to even suggest she wasn't when it's very obvious she was. 2. Kurth's book being a good reference for things in her life- no, because so much of them are told by Rathlef and Botkin who were biased and turned out to be wrong. Also the quotes from other supporters such as Prince Frederick and Duke of Leuchenberg are now very suspect. Even Leuchenberg's own son disagreed with him. I agree the stuff about her later years is okay, maybe some basics, but not much else is trustworthy anymore. What he calls 'the true story of AA' is now discarded fantasy. 3."Letting people make up their own mind." No, this is a bad thing now that we know the answer. This may have been okay before the DNA tests, but now it is just plain wrong and misleading to write an article that could be taken that she may have been AN. I know this is what you and the AA supporters want, but this is not reality and we need to make sure that the article does not leave any other option to the reader than the proven fact that she was not AN and was FS. The 'mystery' must end.

Aggiebean (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

--- On Sat, 6/6/09, REV. ANTONIO HERNANDEZ <[email protected]> wrote:

From: REV. ANTONIO HERNANDEZ <[email protected]> Subject: Administrators Date: Saturday, June 6, 2009, 3:57 PM

Dear Administrator(s),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rev. Dr. Antonio Akiva Hernandez, O.M.D., Judaeobuddhist Order www.myspace.com/judaeobuddhist www.cryptojews.com/Antonio_Hernandez.htm76.195.94.220 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bookie, you have clear-headed, excellent points, just as the undeservedly loved Trusivler said of you. It was one of the few rational things he ever said. DON'T QUIT! Don't let those damned bullies hurt your feelings; you have excellent ideas for that page! I am a little more in support of you than I am with the general feel at the Talk:Anna Andersonpage, because you say, "Treat KURTH'S BOOK fairly," and I like that. That is proper scholarship. What you said is what I've been telling them since early April--Kurth cannot be erased just because they don't like his probable but not conclusively proved lies/frauds. He did write a book that was "THE" source for Anna, everyone's source from 1983 until the late 1990s. And I resent finneganw making the silly claim that "many libraries have moved" Kurth to fiction. That's horsefeathers and he knows it. They are just trying to goad you... then you stick up for yourself, then they run to the new admin we have over there and get you banned unjustly. Look at the admin's talk page; they're at it already because they are not scholars or journalists or anything. Don't let them get to you, please!75.21.124.148 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I personally know librarians who have told me the book was removed once the final DNA results were published in March. Bookworm, I want you to know that I do not consider you among the 'delusional fanatics' who cannot behave properly and live in another realm. However I do think it's unfortunate that you seem to put the feelings of Kurth and Schweitzer above reality and accuracy in the article.Aggiebean (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Aggiebean, we are not talkin feelings here. We are talking about the facts of Anna Anderson's life that led up to her lawsuit and formed her life. Facts that you want to be silenced, probably because they pose a challenge to the DNA. But that's how history works, you cannot just present one side and sweep the rest under the carpet. And no matter what the DNA outcome was, it does not change one line of Peter Kurth's book. What happened, happened. ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a last gasp for you Bookworm: do you see that up there, in aggie-girl's post? She knows librarians who moved the book... what CRAP. If that is not "original research" with NO place in Wikipedia, then what is?? And she sneaks this in as if it were gospel and irrefutable. We wanted facts, reliable sources, but we get the above instead. Godspeed, Bookworm, I'm GONE. It is what the hell I should have done in the 1st place when I vanished. Tell aggiebean next time you respond that she should watch my case and see where stupid arrogance gets you. And for heaven's sake, I am not ChatNoir24, I think you know that!75.21.124.148 (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Susy Clemens, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susy Clemens. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree it should be deleted. Why? It's a nice article, very well written and touching. There are other people equally as 'unfamous' here who have articles. Please let it stay. There are thousands of articles here, why not?Aggiebean (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would appear that there is no substantial reason to delete the article. Finneganw, 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha, sockpuppetry at its finest. If not, well-done replica of sockpuppetry. And watch out for the usersnakes. The above is a bid to trick you, curry your favor. Fair warning. That is all I have to say, except one more "Godspeed" for you, Bookworm.75.21.124.148 (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bookworm may not agree with Finneganw and I but he/she knows we are two very different people. He was here a year or 2 before I ever came to wikipedia. Your 'arguments' do not belong on a personal talk page have nothing to do with Susy Clemens.Aggiebean (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your skulduggery and deceptions have A LOT to do with Susy Clemens. Just as you thought I had a lot to do with Noahidism. No, aggiebean, you're not doing this to me again, or to anyone else.75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you refuse to ever accept the fact that she is FS and let us put that in the article? After all it is accepted by everyone except Kurth and about 5 supporters, you, Russophile, Bear, Ferrymansdaughter and John Kendrick. I do not think trying to salvage a little face for Kurth or AA supporters - and that is really what it amounts to- is worth sacrificing the factual content of the article. All evidence points to her being FS, and there is no evidence she was anyone else, and leaving it as a hypothetical mystery only leaves the article open ended again and that is what we are trying to prevent. Also, do you agree anything Rathlef wrote about her 'remembering' should not be allowed in the article?

I guess in the end, we will have to let the mods decide what we do, or they will delete the article.Aggiebean (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this on FS: Instead of saying she was 'probably' FS or definitely FS, we could leave it as that detectives in the 1920s identified her as FS and modern DNA tests back up that finding, and that it's widely accepted as her true identity by media, etc. That way we leave out any offensive wording to cause us to fight. Is this okay?Aggiebean (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massie's book is good, but in cases where we have direct quotes from the scientists themselves and not just the observations of the reporters, we can use them as fact. We can also use the Gill report itself. I do have a problem with leaving the question of her identity with 'probably'. There isn't enough evidence to make a case against her being FS to do that. She did not use the name Anastasia Manahan until she was 72 years old, so I object to her being called by that name throughout the article. Anna Anderson is the name of the article and the name that will be used by people who come here to look her up.Aggiebean (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the new AA book, it was posted by FA on the AP forum, but since all the suvivor threads have been merged into each other in ways I don't understand I can no longer find anything. The post said that someone who was in correspondence with the site was doing research and had found "MUCH MUCH MUCH" new previously unknown info that would completely prove AA was FS and answer all the questions about her case. It is supposed to go to the printers next year. I can't wait either. I'm only sorry I wasn't the one to find out all that stuff, but being that I have no money to travel the world and get into archives and stuff and track down the FS family I have no chance of that. If they have letters, pics and stories proving AA was FS then will you believe it? I know Chat never will.Aggiebean (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know one thing, I KNOW on the basis of proof and the sources that she WAS Franziska Schanskowska. I'm not denying that should be in the entry. See what I just commented on the talk page. Whereas, a problem I see as a big one is the shoveling of POVs instead of sticking to fact. ChatNoir has done enough... but we have this new problem regarding Kurth. Aggie, you already know from me what that problem is. Let's work on it together!75.21.155.47 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rev, if you have something to say to me why not go to my page instead of Bookworm's?Aggiebean (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bookworm, my apologies to you that I had to chase aggiebean here, and forgive me disrupting the talk page. I know I've said you want to run from this... do it, I don't blame you. Take a vacation, like I did. But please don't suggest vacations to others. Especially to the "mods" as aggiebean keeps calling them. They've been basically on vacation throughout this whole thing, except when they're busy yamping down my throat! And may I respectfully ask you, to whom were you referring when you said "eccentric"? I hope not to me, I hope not to the efforts being made at the talk page. We were reaching consensus on major things. Well, I am eccentric, who isn't? The truth is not "eccentric".75.21.155.47 (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bookworm, I am ready to join in your cooling off period if it's unanimous among all involved. However things may get out of hand if some of them stick around. Maybe you should put your idea on the AA talk page and see who agrees.Aggiebean (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bookie, do what your conscience and heart tells you. Don't take suggestions from a "human" who amounts to no more than a sock puppet full of holes. Don't you see what she's doing? Did you see what they've done to me? And too stupid to even get it right. A rest from that damned subject would be if they erased the page, deleted it case closed. The aggiebean might go outside and frighten the wildlife instead.75.21.149.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

He's back with yet another IP, leaving abusive and harassing messages on my personal talk page as well as here. Is there anything that can be done to end his disruption for good?Aggiebean (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still agree with Finneganw on this, I don't think we can get into details w/o fighting. How about you write a sandbox version of what you're talking about and submit it for our approval? Maybe we're not as far apart as we think?Aggiebean (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bookworm, did you do your homework for the SS to approve yet? I cannot believe aggiebean, but just remember Bookworm, she does not own that page. Either we edit or we don't...but please don't let her bullying chase you away!76.195.93.15 (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • OK, hopefully this is rescue time. Please bookie, go contact User Talk:Gwen Gale. There's someone with a half a brain or better! Working to make the page what it should be, and GG thinks like you and I do!76.195.83.199 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, may I ask why you re-added the picture of Miley Cyrus on Miley (given name)? I provided a good reason for removing it, and if you didn't see it, it was because the article is about the name and not her. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With that logic, I guess it's safe to say that we can put a picture of Emma Watson on the page for the name Emma. Or a picture of Anne Hathaway on the page for the name Anne. You make no sense. It does not matter that Miley popularized the name, she does not represent girls who are given that name, and the picture does not need to be there. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Gayane (given name), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at