User talk:Questforanastasia

Where are you getting the pictures you've uploaded? I see you marked the Anna Anderson photo public domain. I doubt it is because of the date. Please include a detailed description of where you found it. --Bookworm857158367 03:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. I'm going to say this once very nicely. While you are completely free to add whatever sourced material you want to the Anna Anderson article, you will stop arbitrarily removing sourced material without consensus. Take it to the talk page and deal with it instead of having a childish edit war about it. Trusilver 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Trusilver 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sir, you are the vandal, erasing sourced information.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Anna Anderson, you will be blocked from editing. Take it to the talk page, your next revert will result in a 3RR and you will be blocked. HOWEVER, you are welcome to put back your sourced information in a way that does not remove the work of others. Trusilver 16:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. The page is blocked until further notice. I suggest you work out the issue on the talk page. If the opposing parties will not discuss a middle ground, then take it to arbitration. If you need help in arranging this, I am more than happy to help you. If you need ANY help from a third party who neither knows nor cares about Anna Anderson, I am more than happy to help you.

But com'on... stop the revert wars. They are not helping the situation, they are only resulting in things like this happening. Trusilver 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a vandal?

No, I'm not. So don't say I am. Secondly, please don't use userpages as a place for discussion, that's what user talk pages are for. Bsroiaadn^Talk 18:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Anderson

Please stop removing information from this article and adding errors -- "reportably" to replace "reportedly" -- etc. Discuss it on the talk page. --Bookworm857158367 11:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop vandalising the Anna Anderson page. Finneganw 13.14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your additions to this article are all POV and aimed at advocating for Anna Anderson as Anastasia. There was already quite a bit of info in the article that gave both viewpoints. You also continue to make spelling errors. "Niece" is correct; not "neice." Please discuss this on the talk page. --Bookworm857158367 14:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE learn to spell. On top of everything else, the edits you are making are riddled with spelling errors. I just corrected your "niece" misspelling and you've added it back. --Bookworm857158367 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bookworm857158367, and Finneganw, vandalism is harmful to wikipedia. although you have every right to express your personal opinion, Wikipedia is not the place to do so. articles are to remain neutral, and your edits are sometimes POV. Hopefully, you will stop vandalizing, less you want to get banned. Best Wishes, Onopearls 15:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are breaking the 3RR rule of wikipedia and need to be warned.Finneganw 16.12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jul1 11

gscshoyru filed a 3RR report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR regarding your recent edits to Anna Anderson. However, he made the bold decision not to provide any diffs so you will likely not be blocked. You may want to comment here. Perspicacite 01:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Anna Anderson. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know damn well you only blocked me because I kept the article like an encyclopedia. This has NO PLACE IN AN ARTICLE. IT'S A FUCKING OPINION.

"The only surviving photograph of Schanzkowska was taken at the age of 16 and shows an attractive, bright eyed, obviously intelligent young woman not an uncouth peasant. She probably taught herself etiquette and deportment, like socially ambitious girls of her class and generation."

And yet when I add info with sources such as the forensic comparisons, it gets IMMEDIATELY deleted. If that's not completely one-sided, I don't know what it. You let them write their opinions in the article but I can't put something with a source?

I have reworded the paragraph about the photograph and have added Kurth's claim that the photo was retouched. You do have a point about that paragraph, even though it is clearly referenced by the European History Journal article. The description of Schanzkowska comes from Arturo Beeche, by all appearances, and his opinion belongs in there just like Kurth's. When your block ends, I'd appreciate it if you'd discuss the changes you want to make on the discussion board before you make them. Let's ratchet down the hostility. This article has to present both sides of the story. It seems to me that there are already a lot of references in there in support of Anderson's claim. You can't just keep removing the references that claim she was Schanzkowska, which WAS pretty strongly suggested by the DNA evidence, without discussing it first. We'll all have to keep editing the article until it reaches a happy medium and lets people decide for themselves. --Bookworm857158367 12:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you've got to understand. You don't quote people like Lili Dehn's commentary even once in this whole article, yet Prince of Greece gets quoted every other line and he never even met her. And you don't quote the man who was across the street who saw Anastasia alive yet you quote the executioners who wouldn't admit they botched the job anyway. And contrary to what one user wrote, this man had documents to prove he lived in the house. Why is it that none of the people in the discussion page seem to really know anything about this subject yet feel they should write an article about it? It's stupid. I never said the DNA didn't suggest she was Schanzkowska, but even if she were a fraud, it dosen't mean you should only present one side of the evidence. If if there's only one side, you should still tell both. And just because that quote came from John Godl's inaccurate article dosen't mean its still not an opinion. Why don't we just copy John's article word for word and post it in the article why don't we with all its slander against the Botkin family who are no longer here to defend themselves.

While I'm at it, let me point out how stupid and disrespectful for them it is to dedicate that article to the late Dr. William Maples and then ignore what he had no doubt of, that Anastasia is MISSING. And then go on to say "It's the media that would like us to think Anastasia is missing, but it's Marie." But taken in the context with the rest of the article, it was meant to be disrespectful as the whole article is.

And of course you deleted my sourced info of how the forensic comparisons in 1995 by British and American experts came out in her favor. I'm not suprised at all. This is about favoritism, and that's it.

The point you keep overlooking with that final statement is that you don't just add sourced material. You add sourced material and delete someone else's sourced material. Personally, when you vandalize an article, I'm not going to spend an hour sorting out what part of your addition is legitimate and what should be removed - I'm just going to revert the entire thing and expect that your next edit is going to be level-headed and free of vandalism.

Also, as I happened to mention in the article discussion - neither myself nor Riana have any participation in this article other than keeping it from being an edit war - Yet you have accused both of us of having some kind of agenda.

I think you have legitimate contributions and should put them to good use, but if you continue doing it in the manner you have been, all it's going to result in is more page protections and longer user blocks. If that's your end goal then I wish you good luck, if you really want to contribute, I suggest you start talking about the subject on the discussion page with a minimum of flaming. Trusilver 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Anna Anderson article.

Actually, I agree that some of the Prince Christopher quotes are too long and there should be a quote or two in there from Lili Dehn or Grand Duke Andrei. I'd certainly like to believe that Anastasia escaped. I don't rule it out and think some of the arguments belong in the article. However, there is such contention here that I think you need to say what you want to include and why on the discussion page before you go about reverting people's edits and taking out information. --Bookworm857158367 00:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cap020.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Cap020.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Cap024.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Cap024.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vlcsnap-8586.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vlcsnap-8586.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]