Aggiebean

Your edits to Anna Anderson

I have reverted your changes. There is no proof that Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska. It's inappropriate to refer to her as Schanzkowska absent that proof. DNA testing that was done proved only that it was PROBABLE that she could have been Schanzkowska because her mitrochondrial DNA is a match to a great-nephew of Schanzkowska's. Many people who are not closely related also share mitochondrial DNA. Schanzkowska's brother also claimed that she was not his sister on one occasion and there are others who have said the two women had different shoe sizes, were different heights, didn't speak the same languages, etc. Those statements might have been untrue or wishful thinking, but there isn't enough factual evidence right now to identify Anderson definitely as Schanzkowska. There were also a number of people who DID identify her as Anastasia, just as there are a number of people who said she was a fraud. The current article gives statements from critics and supporters, provides the DNA evidence indicating that she wasn't Anastasia, and lets the reader make up his or her own mind.--Bookworm857158367 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your info is one sided and misleading. I am only trying to show the other side. When you edit out all my references to those who don't believe, you keep the article very biased. I don't want to delete your part, only add fairness to it.

No, this version of the article is not one-sided and misleading, but the information you added is. The current version accurately states that most historians believe that Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska, that DNA indicates that she wasn't Anastasia, and includes statements from people who believe she was a fraud and from people who believed she was Anastasia, as well as from those who believe that she was a lady even if not Franziska Schanzkowska. It is not accurate to identify this person as Franziska Schanzkowska without proof, for the reasons I described above. I have again reverted your changes. --Bookworm857158367 02:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I don't have any objections to the quotes you added from Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna or from the lawyer. Please reference them, though, if you restore them. Add the book or article you got them from, the name of the author, publication information and page number in the same style as the other references. I've been trying to make sure that the statements in the article are backed up with accurate citations. I do object and will continue to revert it if you identify Anderson as Franziska Schanzkowska or give Franziska's birthdate for her. That simply has not been proven. --Bookworm857158367 02:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also noted the additions you've made to the talk page. She is referred to as Anastasia because the name she used during most of her life was either Anastasia Tschaikovsky or Anastasia Manahan, not necessarily because people are identifying her Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna. Anna Anderson was a pseudonym, not the name she actually called herself. It is not clear that she was Franziska Schanzkowska, which is why she cannot be called Franziska or given her date of birth. I also suggest that you sign all your statements on the talk page. Otherwise, no one will know who is saying what. --Bookworm857158367 02:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you take out the quotes by people you don't want heard from? That is bias! You lied about Anna V., she was never asked! The comments I added may at times be speculative, but it is offering that view, you stick only to your view and offer no other options. You say there were 'differences' between them when it's all hearsay and none of it can be proven! Is this article to become a joke? aggiebean

I didn't write the comment about Anna Vyrubova. I know she wasn't asked. This particular version of the article is a compromise. For awhile, people were reverting it completely several times a day, including people who believe she was Anastasia and people who believe she was Franziska Schanzkowska. You appear to fall on the latter side of the argument. The Anastasia argument supporters also believe this article is horrible and biased and I must be an Anna Anderson supporter. I did my damnest to include both sides in the article. If you want to add that in as well -- cited, please -- I don't mind. This article still isn't perfect. Ideally, EVERY statement in here will be backed up with a citation including author, title, page number and publication information. I notice that none of the statements you introduced were cited. Speculation and your personal opinion is not allowed. If you want to say, "Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna believed she was a fraud and said this" or "According to author so and so, Anna Vyrubova wasn't asked to see Anna Anderson and this might have been the reason," that's another thing. You need to cite your sources. --Bookworm857158367 14:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

YOU cannot give an 'according to author so and so' on Anna V. because there is none, so the statement about her 'refusing to get involved' is an assumption and a lie. She never made any comment,so how do you know? There is a quote from Tatiana B. saying she didn't want to use AV becaus e she was a 'disciple of Rasputin' and I do feel the fact that she had become a nun needed to be known. Don't leave up the LIE that she 'refused' because she did not!I don't see anything wrong with adding 'some believe', because it offers another chain of thought. If all you're going to use for 'documentation' is Kurth's book, and pass off comments about height and shoes as 'fact' when none of it can be proven as 'differences' the article is misleading! When you say 'there were differences'you are stat ing that as fact, when really, it was only according to some, in their own faded memory, some things don't match but this is no PROOF! Just because you can quote on p. 111 on Kurth's book that somebody said something does NOT make what they said a fact! I thought my version is a compromise, because I left most of your junk up, only changed the things I felt were blatently wrong or misleading, and added a few more quotes from opposing viewpoints, like Olga, Dr. Gossler, and the Prince freidrich site. If you delete ALL of that, it proves you do NOT want a 'compromise' you only want YOUR version to stand! Kids read this in school, and they don't need to be fed a fairy tale that AA might still have been AN just because that's what you want. Your version is not only overloaded and rambling, it also slants everthing to AA's side. The entire thing is a mess, confusing to the average reader and needs to be redone again. aggiebean

I guarantee that someone else will soon come in and add quotes that you will find even more objectionable. This is a topic that has had far too many cooks, all with their own point of view, which is why it is currently a jumbled mess. If anything, I'd say that the article is currently overloaded with your point of view. Anna Anderson was a fraud; the Botkins were schemers out to make money; everyone believed from the start she was a liar, etc. It's also a fact that there were supporters of Anderson within the royal family. Their points of view belong in there along with the opponents or it isn't a true story. If she hadn't been pretty darn convincing, it's not likely that she would have lasted as long as she did. The DNA evidence, the Franziska Schanzkowska private detective investigation, and the long quotes from people saying she was a fraud are all in there. I will not agree to identifying her as Franziska Schanzkowska flat out when there are still those who doubt it. The current version of the article makes it clear most people think she was, but let readers make up their own minds. --Bookworm857158367 17:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the current article, though far from what I'd like to put up, is reasonably fair to both sides, and allows room for thought on either side. You may think this is a good thing, but to me it's still misleading students into thinking there was any possibility she was AN. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that AA matched as FS to 99.9% accuracy, and there also need to be pictures showing how much she looked like FS. I am happy to see the quotes by Irene, Olga and Dr. Gossler left in. I am satisfied with the current version under the circumstances, though not totally. And as you say, someone else will do something else to it soon. If I were wikipedia, give up on this topic.aggiebean

Kurth claimed the photo had been doctored several times to make it look more like Anna Anderson. I've seen pictures of Franziska Schanzkowska's sisters in old age and there is a striking resemblance to Anna Anderson. There's a pretty strong likelihood that that's who she was. However, the mitochondrial DNA isn't proof -- 99 percent or otherwise. MtDNA is only proof that she shared the same profile as the Schanzkowska family. I've read Massie's book and did refer to it when I was editing that article. The book probably should be added to the list of references. As to what kids believe or don't believe, I think they should be able to make up their own minds, taking all the facts into account. The facts are in there, even though the article is fairly rough. Her identity is not a certainty. There's only strong circumstantial evidence that she was Franziska Schanzkowska. Most reputable schools are not going to teach kids to use Wikipedia as their only or primary source, either. It should be used as a general resource that will point kids in the direction of other texts. --Bookworm857158367 19:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There's more than circumstantial evidence, the DNA is a pretty big one considering she was the only suspect! I know he always claims the picture was doctored, and there are doctored versions, but I have also seen some that were blurry and faded but not drawn on. I could show you all versions if you want. Yes please do add Massie's book, and more quotes from him. Even if AA wasn't FS, though it's almost sure that she is, she still wasn't and is never going to be Anastasia, and that is what it's wrong to mislead kids into believing. aggiebean

Anna Anderson

I have again reverted your additions. The lines you have added are your opinion. Original research is not allowed. Find a published source saying there are glaring similarities between the photos, etc., and cite it. --Bookworm857158367 05:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The book I mentioned on Ernie's trip IS a published source! Why can't it be used? People need to know that the info was out there before she said it. That's not an opinion, the book did exist and it did deal with Ernie's trip.

B. Himmelstjerna, "Im Angesicht der Revolution", 1922, publisher Steeler

First of all, you didn't cite it properly. Secondly, you haven't proven that Anna Anderson actually saw this information. The most I would be comfortable with you adding is: "Such and such information was published in 1922 in the book "Insert title here", three years before Anna Anderson made her claim about Ernie's trip, etc. etc. etc." You cannot add a line after that to the effect that this proves she was an impostor or that she clearly saw it and learned it from immigrants, UNLESS you find some other published source that makes that claim and then you must cite that to. That is what qualifies as original research -- your opinion, rather than fact. You also need to cite it the way that all the other references are cited. We are trying to keep the references listed uniforn. --Bookworm857158367 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

oh come on you know you can never prove she saw it! The fact remains that the book did exist, and therefore it was no 'shocking info' that AA came up with the Ernie story. I know you as an AA supporter don't like that, but it's misleading people to let them think she did.-aggiebean —Preceding signed aggiebean comment added by 02:24, 8 October 2007

B. Himmelstjerna, "Im Angesicht der Revolution", 1922, publisher Steeler

I have been trying to find bibliographical information on this book in Germany and I haven't been successful. Do you actually have the book? Were did you find out about it? Do you have any more bibliographical information about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblio-boffin (talk • contribs) 12:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Frustration

I hope it is okay to express my opinion here on my own talk page. If not the mods can please delete it. I am personally more convinced than ever that Chat is Kurth and that he is using yet another alias. I have been witness to this on many sites over several years. The patterns are the same- argue, then get angry, then insulting, then hysterical right before getting banned or suspended. Next, come back, sometimes with a new name, but not always, pretending to be nice and allowing concessions that are supposed to sound good to us, the 'enemy' but actually will benefit him instead. When we see through the guise and ignore it or challenge it, he becomes irate again and the treats and taunts fly. Other typical behavoir includes deleting his old posts, if able, pretending it's in the 'spirit of goodwill' or whatever but really it's because he realizes he's humiliated himself once again.At times he, like all AA supporters, attempt the "I don't believe in AA I'm just interested in the story" ploy which no one falls for, at least not for long. He always gives himself away. Even worse than fighting with him, which he enjoys, is saying you don't want to fight or aren't coming back. This makes him blow his stack and insult you again, see, he can't win or even manipulate you if you don't play. So it's like War Games the only way to win is not to play.

And I admit I am like Marty McFly being called chicken, I can't stop when he calls me out and accuses me of stuff. I know this is wrong, but as long as he's out there spreading misleading info and touting discredited info like Rathlef even after the DNA I feel like somebody has to be there to tell the other side so innocent people don't fall for his snake oil. He may feel he can't let his goddess AA down but I think it's more important to protect the identity of a murdered 17 year old girl that has been stolen and usurped by this crazy old woman for too long already.

If he is Kurth, the best thing he could do is to admit he was wrong and write an ending to the AA story using the truth. People would respect that as a legacy a lot more than irrational rants over a story proven false and hanging onto a lost fantasy. Even if he's not Kurth, whoever he is, he needs to give it up for the sake of his own mental health. This has to end for justice and reality in history. We owe it to the dead, not some guy's ego holding onto a dream that's long since flown.Aggiebean (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So I see now he must really be desperate to delete all posts by his RevAntonio name and the IPs too. he must have made a goof and posted not being logged in and his IP is showing up somewhere linking him to one of his socks. This must be why he is so upset and wants all record of himself deleted. But I'm sure it all stays in the history.Aggiebean (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to call for a RfD. -Lisa (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson page

A note to you to draw your attention to a suggestion I have made re simplifying the Anna Anderson page appears on the Anna Anderson discussion page. User:Finneganw 14:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Chat is back. I have already reversed his damage. He simply wants to put the name of an author in as a reference without citing page numbers. This is his typical ploy to invent references where they do not exist. I have warned him. He is using the ISP starting with 66. Of course all the invented 'references' come from Kurth. When these are removed he then puts in Rathlef again without accurate referencing. User:Finneganw 09:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Chat is back, he never left. And who is responsible for removing ALL my citations that included author AND page number? I invent references? Again, you are lying. Every single one was sourced, and someone removed them in his/her great fear of the true story. ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that Anna Anderson was a total fraud. She never had any genetic connection with the Romanov family. That has been repeatedly proven. The opinions of her supporters have no relevance. They all have one thing in common: the wish to make monies out of abusing a dead 17 year old. They will use any falsification necessary to perpetuate mistruths. Wikipedia is not about pushing inaccurate information or encouraging financial gain for such dubious people. User:Finneganw 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know you guys were here. I'm glad, this is a good place to discuss things. Finneganw, you are absolutely right and thanks for all you are doing to help. Chat, Rathlef is not a valid source, and NO ONE is afraid of AA's story! Do you really believe that? It's honestly that it's a fake story and should not be presented as truth! It's time for you to get over it and let us have a factual article!Aggiebean (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Most Reverend Antonio Hernandez here

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

Award

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		To Aggiebean, for your continuing dedication in dealng with vandalism and Trolls at the Anna Anderson page. Keep up the excellent work. Finneganw (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I think there is more than enough information in the article now. I would tend to not add to it anymore. Finneganw (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right, there is more than enough. I did have to add some more details on why she was FS today due to bookworm's insistence we can't say she was FS. Also adding any more would only cause more, such as bringing up the language debate which could open a whole new chapter on that. I will now leave it alone unless one of the AA supporters does something that needs correcting. Then we can work on whittling it down and doing a final cleanup. Thanks again for all your help.Aggiebean (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They're baaack

I have also noted the return of the obsessive Kurth and Anderson supporter bookworm. Finneganw (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what a shame bookworm has taken to inserting things as well, and not even sourced, in attempts to cast doubt on the identity of AA. The overly obsessed Kurth is resorting to more ridiculous methods all the time and will not serve him well. No one believes the RevAntonio story after the absolute fool he made of himself under that name. It is pathetic this article can't just be left in peace to tell the basic reality and not be embellished with fiction by those who cannot give up their fantasy.Aggiebean (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you finneganw for the barnstar! I didn't know we could give those, you deserve one as well, I will find a way to give you one. Keep up your excellent work!Aggiebean (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Bookworm is an obsessed Anderson supporter. That is extremely obvious. He keeps on going on about how much he admires Kurth. Nobody who has done any real research admires that writer. The game is most definitely up. It is quite obvious that Anderson was Schankowska. Schankowska disappears and nothing further is heard from her and there is no childhood about Anderson. This is apart from the DNA evidence which is not refutable. Some though can't see reality even when it is staring them in the face. Don't lose any sleep about it. Next they will be claiming to be Romanovs themselves. I guess they could have some sort of fraud's reunion or bizarre seance then. I doubt though they would want any of their DNA taken for testing though!!! Finneganw 05:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Once again you make unsubstantiated accusations against me. Since you are incapable of proving this, (as I wasn't banned at all) please remove all posts you have made on talk pages or the main page accusing me of "multiple disruption" "abuse" etc etc. If you do not, then I will have no alternative but to report you for making unwarranted and inaccurate (to say the least) personal attacks. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, why is everyone who disagrees with you "obsessive?" I hardly think my paltry number of posts here can be called that, compared to some people who seem to spend all day at the computer posting on this subject. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I just had it out with her, she accused me of making a 'one person rant' in the archives when I didn't even come here until the end of the second one. The one person rant is clearly by PK and his alter Chatnoir who appeared at the same time Kurth was banned. Anyone reading it can plainly see Kurth and Chat are the same person with identical attitude and rhetoric. I hope the mods will stop these IDIOTS from putting their discredited garbage into the article. I fear another edit war is here, but we have reality on our side so I hope that helps. Thanks again for all the good work you are doing!Aggiebean (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of ranting in the archives, merely in the latest discussion page. I don't have time to read back through all the archives. Your comment that you have "reality" on your side is undermined by your obsession with the idea that PK and Chat are the same person. I am sure that any Wiki moderator would soon be able to work out that they live in completely different places and are totally different people. I know this for a fact. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then you should read it before you go accusing me of a "110 page one person rant" which is not true at all. The most dominant person thorughout is PK/Chat. PK and Chat are the same person. I have dealt with both names numerous times and there is no question. Finneganw and AnastasiaEvidence know it too. Just read that archive, and go back and read the googletalk pages and compare them to the way he talks and acts on the message boards. It's identical. On royal forums PK had made posts insulting AnastasiaEvidence and I so bad that he got his posts deleted. If they were still there you could see how they are the same as Chat. Look at all the boards, even Bear's and the KW, AP, mine, all of them, he gives himself away. Kurth has also posted on various places as AVSpeichter and James A. Fraser.I know you want to respect him and defend him but there's no use. And no, he apparently doesn't have 'better things to do' and no one is more obsessed, emotionally and egotistically attached to AA. Just because he uses different IPs and bounces his location, or perhaps posts from his LA home sometimes and other times VT or NYC doesn't mean a thing. I'm a mod on other forums, and I see this frequently. Proxy blockers, IP bouncers, even using dialups in different cities and pulling the plug before you get pinged, I've seen it all. I've seen them put up fake pictures saying 'this is me' (like Chat does, sometimes it's a stocky bearded fellow, other times it's a tall moustached gray haired gentleman, sometimes in a tux, but he gave himself away by posting one from the beach where the guy is clearly an NBC employee in the logo shirt) I have seen some people even make myspaces and photobuckets for their aliases in sad attempts to legitimize them as real people. Once they deny them, it's far too humiliating to ever admit it (kind of like AA never admitting she wasn't AN) so they just have to keep up the act. I have learned that the rhetoric, personality, position and attitude give a person away much more than an IP. Yes I did originally think you were Penny on AP but as I got to read your posts more I realized you were not. However, the more I read of Chat/PK's the more convinced I am that they are one in the same, just like AA and FS. Please, this article does not need any more POV vandalism or any appeasement of the AA side which has been proven false.Aggiebean (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Annie, I have a full time job and don't have time to trawl back through archives. Most people looking at this article will do as I have and look at the latest page in which you do post 109 comments. I never said it was a "110 page one person rant" .

You are also SO wrong that they are the same person. Peter hasn't posted on the subject for ages and I am sure that the Moderators could check it out if they so wished. I really don't know why you are so obsessed with this idea. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Because he was on my site too, I am well aware that he uses different IPs for his different names, as any 14 year old troll knows well enough to do, so he's not going to be proven that way of course. It's the other factors I mentioned that clearly give him awayAggiebean (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Any wiki moderator will be able to see your agenda clearly Ferrymansdaughter. You have been exposed. If you wish to rant and distort fact please do it elsewhere. Do try and understand that wikipedia is an online ecyclopaedia and not a place for you to push a distorted inaccurate agenda. Finneganw 00.03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, my only "agenda" is the right to free speech - which you clearly hate. I would also like to point out that an "online encylopedia" is not the place for personal attacks such as those you are making all the time. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Free speech has nothing to do with the matter. It is all about providing correct information and not trying to push your inaccurate discredited POV agenda. The game is up. Use the sandbox to push your fantasy. Don't vandalise the article. You have been informed of wikipedia policy about trying to pass off discredited inaccuracies as sources. By the way don't bother trying to fool people about Kurth either. It is all out there in the open and very plain to see. Finneganw 12.47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As the mod told "RevAntonio", this is not a democracy and you do not get to say and do whatever you want. The mods also stated, as Finneganw has pointed out, that not every source is considered equal or valid and once they have been disproven they cannot be used anymore. There is no place in a factual article, this one or any other, for the 'free speech' of those who espouse outrageous and untrue theories on subjects when historical and scientific fact prove them wrong. This article is for educational purposes, not games. Ferrymans, if you want to tell your POV why not make a website with all your conspiracy theories on it, but keep it off wiki. Sorry but Finneganw and I have the facts on our side now, and this is all we need to counteract your false information.Aggiebean (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

When the new book comes out about Anna Anderson, its substance should definitely be added to the article and cited. I hope someone did succeed in digging up something on Franziska Schanzkowska and getting her family to talk. But Kurth's book is still a published reference that has its place in the Anderson article. It also might be more useful to carry on your conversation with Finnegan on the Anderson talk page and not on my talk page unless you're responding to something I said. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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.Aggiebean (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ChatNoir24 reported

Just wanted you to be informed that ChatNoir has been reported for breach of 3RR. Finneganw 22:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!Aggiebean (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

CC for your reference

From: REV. ANTONIO HERNANDEZ Subject: Administrators Date: Saturday, June 6, 2009, 3:57 PM

Dear Administrator(s),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rev. Dr. Antonio Akiva Hernandez, O.M.D., Judaeobuddhist Order www.myspace.com/judaeobuddhist www.cryptojews.com/Antonio_Hernandez.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.94.220 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought you would like to know that I have reported the above mentioned editor. Finneganw 02:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that contributor is more than a few pennies short of a pound. Finneganw 04:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree he is. The dumbest accusation is that we vandalized the posts ourselves. Doesn't he know it's all recorded in the history and you can check out who did it? Oh yes, he must, this is why he wanted to 'vanish' before to get rid of the evidence.Aggiebean (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Solution for Anna Anderson page

Please read my solution very, very carefully. Do NOT get involved in any extension of it otherwise it will all be severely distorted. I believe I have provided a very clear solution. Finneganw 11:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I added something else before I saw this, please read it and let me kmow if it distorts anything and I'll delete it. I think it helps but I'll go by your word.Aggiebean (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No it is fine. Just do not add anything else at all even if provoked. Finneganw 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been in touch with the mod. I believe this will soon be dealt with. Do no respond to the tormenting. It makes you look very bad indeed. As I advised, I believe you should leave it alone as the rabid supporters are exposing themselves. Let them as the mod can see through it all. Read what he/she wrote. Finneganw 02:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Please keep to it. Finneganw 10:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I believe the mods are dealing with all of this. Don't get involved please. Finneganw 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, for two so very different people, you sure seem around each other alot, and sometimes finneganw seems to be answering himself, signature and all. Is someone slipping? If you are doing what I always have suspected you of doing, THAT is what you'd better stop. My old posts can be seen and read anytime. But you will not have the protective cover you once enjoyed. So quit being 13 years old and get to work on Anna. I must by the law I invoked stop posting here.75.21.109.14 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

He's not talking to himself he's answering the messages I leave on his page. Aggiebean (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, I just popped in to say I'm not resuming any of this fighting either. This is a message in goodwill, take it or leave it. It will actaully amuse me to see who gets dealt with and how it will be done. I've exposed myself aplenty already; everyone knows who I am, and what I've done. So as I say, I'm totally with you on disciplinary measures. As the saying goes, Be careful what you wish for.75.21.109.14 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I just added something as well. I have challenged Bookworm to prove which Schankowska she was if she were not Franziska! This nonsense she could be anybody in western europe is utter rubbish. The last desperate attempts by a fanatic it would seem.Finneganw 07:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought I should let you know that protection has been lifted on the page. I have formally requested that the mod keep an eye on the page. Finneganw 07:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I laid out what I think should be done with the article and why in the various posts I've made on the subject. In short, Anderson was not Anastasia and in all likelihood was Franziska Schanzkowska; Kurth's book appears to be the best reference to the events in Anderson's life and can be used as a reference if the events within it are viewed with a critical eye and juxtaposed against citations from other books on the subject; everything I have read on the DNA testing indicates they tested the mtDNA, which doesn't give an absolute identity, though in this case it is extremely likely when you look at the other evidence. If you've found scientists commenting further on the case in more up to date articles, great. Put it in. What I don't agree to is removing all references from Kurth's book or to using pejorative language to refer to anyone in the article. Lay out the facts in neutral language and let people make up their own minds. Frankly, at this point I'm a little annoyed by the whole discussion and I find a lot of the comments that have been made on the page and on the various talk pages border on personal attacks, not just disagreements on the subject matter. I don't feel like engaging you or Finnegan at the moment, though I suppose I'll be forced to if the edit wars start again. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Understand this: I'm NOT editing one single line in the Anna entry, nor have I ever done. I've laid my ideas bare as has Bookworm. It's finnegan spoiling for a fight all over again, and I ain't giving him nothing no way, no how. His reports against me, and mine against him, have led to disgrace and shame for us both. The entry is a mess and the talk page stinks like a sewer. I won't do battle again, and I am NOT a rabid supporter of anyone except HIH who died in 1919. I'm not vandalizing anyone anywhere, and all that I say here can be traced easily. You know who I am. I have no deep love for ChatNoir either!! He has done the damage and I have taken the blame long enough, if your accusations against him hold any water. So: Let's work together and do this thing (I've posted my ideas), or let's all just drop it!!75.21.109.14 (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never spoiled for a fight. I'm not quite sure where you got that bizarre idea from. I have though always been concerned with factual accuracy. It is proven fact that Anderson was not and never was Anastasia. That is not something to be negotiated. It has been proved beyond doubt. It is also fact that Anderson's DNA proved 99.9% that she was Schankowska. There are absolutely no other candidates or possibilities. Any other bizarre agenda is simply wrong and has no place on wikipedia as it is completely unverifiable. Her 'story' is a complete myth and is no more credible than any other person who tried to steal the identity of a brutally murdered 17 year old young woman. The myth of Anderson has been totally disproven and openly ridiculed. If it is included in an article it must be accompanied by information that shows it up to be the undoubted fraud that it was. That is being non-POV. To present it otherwise makes all guilty of such collusion equally fraudulent. As for Bookworm's continued obsession with Kurth I would suggest she gives it a rest as that worthless piece of material is made up of hearsay, invention and complete fraud. Kurth chose to perpetuate the fraud of Anderson, Botkin and all the other fraudsters involved along the way. Kurth's tome was never by the way a biography. To classify it as such insults those who write factually accurate and repsected biographies. What it was was a very poor attempt to state that Anderson was Anastasia and it was done in a very amateur and unsubtle manner that only those without a knowledge of fact - Russian history, the Romanov family, Soviet history etc. etc. ever fell for it. Kurth is so extremely POV it is completely laughable. He never attempts to be objective and actually openly attacks anybody who knew the real Anastasia and met Anderson as they get in the way of pushing his agenda. Kurth is completely unverifiable. That is why you can pick up a copy of his tome at amazon.com for as little as 2 cents as they will do anything to get rid of it because it is completely worthless. It is also interesting to note that a great many serious libraries have removed Kurth's tome from factual sections and placed it in the fiction section. That is because it perpetuates complete fiction. Bookworm and others have been warned by one mod to not perpetuate known inaccuracy. The most recent mod has also made it known that the page should only be edited with consensus. I can see no consensus here at all as there are some, for whatever reason, who wish to be engaged in denial of proven historical and scientific fact. Finneganw 09:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't say it any clearer than I have above. I don't agree with you or Aggiebean, for the reasons I have given above, and I will oppose you if you attempt to remove all references to Kurth's book or use pejorative language instead of the neutral language that is appropriate in this article. That does not mean, by the way, that I think the article should say that she was Anastasia. It should say the DNA testing that was done indicates that she was in all likelihood Franziska Schanzkowska. But, as this is an article about Anderson's life and Kurth's book is a biography of Anderson, some of what he wrote about her should be included along with other books about the Anderson case. You and Aggiebean are and have been more than a little overwrought on this topic of late. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bookworm you keep referring to Kurth's inaccurate tome as a biography on Anderson. That is simply incorrect. It is a poor attempt to try to push the POV agenda that Anderson was Anastasia. If you want to find a 'biography' or 'autobiography' on Anderson refer to 'I, Anastasia' which of course was never written by Anderson even though it was claimed to have been, but her supporters. Anderson was always a fraud and has been exposed totally as such. She tried to take on the identity of a dead 17 year old woman and was exposed throughout her life by those who knew the real Anastasia as being a fraud. Her supporters couldn't cope with this and spent decades attacking those who knew the real Anastasia. If you bother to do further reading beyond Kurth you will perhaps discover this. The only honest part of her life was before she took on the guise of Anderson and was merely Schankowska. In the meantime don't try to foist Kurth on to any person as it is completely inaccurate rubbish and has been openly ridiculed as such by too many serious historians for them all to be wrong. That is quite apart from eminent scientists who have also proven Anderson to be a fraud. Always try to remember people cannot make up their own minds if incorrect information is paraded as fact. To attempt such a practice is intellectually dishonest. Others refer to it as fraud. Finneganw 16:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed by now, Bookworm, is that none of these two have ever been able to disprove a single line of Kurth's writings. All they can do, is to libel Kurth and attack the rest of us for wanting the true story about Anna Anderson to be told. I have challenged Annie/Aggiebean to compare Olga's letters to the invalid in Berlin to Vorres' ramblings about what happened at the Mommsen Clinic during Olga's visit, but of course, she ducks the issue every time, knowing that she will come up short. The only way to get a decent article out of this, is to block these two from editing in perpetuity. ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see two rabid Anderson supporters colluding together who simply have no interest in discussing the matter rationally. It's time for your nonsense to stop and for you to do some real research beyond the discredited Kurth. I doubt though you are interested. You have both been warned about using discredited sources by one mod and also have been warned by another of editing without consensus. I guess you are both choosing to ignore them. Finneganw 22:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they have made absolute fools of themselves on the AA page. No matter how many examples I give of why Kurth's sources are discredited, all I get is 'you still haven't given me ONE!' like a little kid yelling 'you didn't tag me' while laying on the ground. I have given several and could go on for pages, but they will only give me the same answer. It is very delusional, irrational and pathetic, and does nothing to help the article. If I were wiki I'd forbid the entire subject, due to the odd characters it attracts.Aggiebean (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I can't help myself, I'm actually chuckling so excuse any typos here... aggie, do you even understand what "wiki" truly means? I don't mean Wikipedia and its Communist Manifesto Rule Book, I mean the true spirit of wiki. You don't know, do you, you'll have to run somewhere and look it up! If it weren't for bullies like we-all-know-whom, Wikipedia could be THE perfect wiki project.75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm

You and finneganw are certainly proof about the bizarre users attracted to Anna's talk page. I can see how you and your alter-ego are going to keep roadblocking this whole thing. Tell you this: I'm not Chat so I hope he gets his hide tanned and banned. But you... you are no better at taking suggestions or following a GOOD lead. I'm telling you personally, I resent your obnoxious, name-calling attitude. All that is OK when you do it, but anyone else?.... Why not waste less time puppy-dogging "finneganw" and more time re-sculpting the article? If this Chatnoir is really as big an idiot as you say he is, then get him BANNED for non-stop vandalization. Somehow I'm not sure who's vandalizing whom. By the way, I did break into one of your posts with comments... it is fairly done and you cannot use it as an excuse to say I'm meddling with your posts. They are too long and nearly incomprehensible, aggie! Work better if you want the progress you seek!!75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the rants have started again! Finneganw 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's worse than rants, it's a rampage of irrational, delusional, sniping, an onslaught of deranged behavior by someone who cannot accept reality. The recent attacks at several of the pages around the board are proof that this person is beyond all help and hope and has no business editing this site or even our talk pages.Aggiebean (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

Look, Aggiebean, we are in agreement that Kurth turned out to be wrong about Anderson's identity, but the book itself is an accounting of the events of HER life and it is thus far the most complete biography of Anderson. It's not fiction and librarians who place it in that category are ill-informed. Like I've said in the past, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You examine the source to determine what is correct and what might be suspect, you compare the material against that of other sources and, where there's some doubt about who might be correct, you reference both and say that there's a conflict. If one source is wrong, you say that this is what once was believed, but some other accounting has been proven correct. This is what scholars have always done in reassessing old source material and building on what has been writen before. I will not agree to removing all references to Kurth's book from the article, period. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously do not read entries Bookworm. Anderson's whole life apart from when she was openly Schankowska was based on a complete fiction. This has been repeatedly proven. Kurth's book is not a biography. It is a very poor attempt to convince people that Anderson was Anastasia. If you want to find Anderson's fake 'autobiography' read 'I, Anastasia' which wasn't even written by her. Eminent scholars have assessed Anderson and found her to be a complete fraud. The game is up. Eminent scientists have also proven she had no genetic connection whatsoever with the Romanovs. In fact she was a 99.9% match with her great-nephew Karl Maucher. She was just all in all rather pathetic. Kurth is such a poor source as his whole extreme POV agenda is based on a lie. That is why his worthless tome has no place at wikipedia as the drivel it contains is unverifiable invention based on the invention of other unscrupulous supporters. Anderson had no memories of Anastasia as she was not Anastasia. It's as simple as that. She was just a complete lie fed information by her unscrupulous supporters who wished to use her in an outrageous attempt to gain Romanov monies that did not exist. Once again you need to do further reading to obtain greater information. Sadly you seem disinclined to do so and are completely obsessed with your discredited Kurth. That is why you are not able to reach consensus with other editors. Finneganw 23:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A big problem here is that Bookworm feels sorry for Kurth and wants to be able to salvage some dignity for him by using his book, and by trying to say even if she wasn't AN she wasn't that nasty ol' FS! Encyclopedias need to be based on fact, not appeasement, mollycoddling and therapy help for people who are unhappy with the true results. "Riddle" can't be a biography, because she wasn't Anastasia, and a great deal of the book, especially the parts where Rathlef is helping her 'remember' are now reduced to fiction because they COULD NOT have happened! Rathlef and Botkin were writers who were very instrumental in spreading AA's myth and gaining support for her, and their writings are told in a way that is sympathetic to her and vicious towards those who rejected her, using the ploy that they really knew it was her but turned their backs for money. This is wrong, and the reps of the people tainted by the AA supporters all those years need to finally be cleared. Rathlef and Botkin's versions are not true and should never be presented as such, even in retrospect. It's wrong to put into the article things they said AA 'remembered' when she didn't really. The problem with Kurth's book is that is is largely based on the discredited writings of those two, and therefore most of it is discredited, too. He also uses a lot from Fallows who had people trying to back up AA's stories that never happened. He uses Georg Leuctenberg as a source, but avoids the statements of his son who was certain all along AA was a fraud. He uses statements by other supporters that are very suspect now that we know the truth. The only thing in his book that could be used is the basic timeline of events and the pathetic tale of her later years. Nothing of her claim, and stuff supporters said she 'knew' and 'remembered' should be included because it is not true, and proven to be wrong. The article must be factual and not have to worry about offending Kurth. I believe pity for Kurth is what stands in the way of Bookworm agreeing to a factual article, and that is unacceptable.Aggiebean (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED

Working, debating in good faith mean nothing to you. You cannot tolerate honesty in scholarship, because you are unhappy with my recent posts. Now you are screaming to the admin for my permanent block which isn't going to happen. Furthermore I have reported you for the above, and for suspected sock puppetry, because I think it's you who somehow hijacked the IP address I used recently, the one that shows here and now. My IP fluctuates randomly, the mods know this, so the culprit will be caught. Meantime, I'm not going to openly fight with you, but I won't allow you to walk all over me over at the admin's talk page either. And if you suspect a third party is harmful, now's the time to speak up!75.21.124.148 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are disruptive, irrational and abrasive. You serve no positive purpose on this site. Your over the top rants all over the place speak for themselves. Anyone can see who the problem child is here, and it's not me.Aggiebean (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We'll see, won't we?75.21.124.148 (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

This is a courtesy note informing you that an issue with which you have been involved is now being discussed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Anna Anderson. AlexiusHoratius 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Susy Clemens

Thanks to you and Finnegan for the remarks about the Susy Clemens article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and I hope your article will be saved.Aggiebean (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson etc.

Have a look over at the Admin board. Bookworm and I are basically in agreement with what needs to happen to the article. Please put your support behind the idea of removing everything except the beginning paragraphs above the Contents box. It would also seem there is ample evidence for a request for ChatNoir24 to be banned. Do not engage him. That is what the troll wants. Finneganw 06:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

What THIS "troll" wants is exactly what you just suggested above--and you know it. And don't bother aggiebean with warnings about engagement! aggiebean doesn't listen to anyone... not even you finn!75.21.124.148 (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look

Have a gander at the frreshly started Talk: Anna Anderson. It is good. The admin, if that is what DrKiernan is, seems competent and confident. PLEASE, this is detente from me to you: don't spoil it all, again! I'll even be super-nice to you. The point is the page is about to get re-done and done right! Even you cannot object! And ChatNoir has lost the bid for Kurth-as-reliable-source!!75.21.124.148 (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Corrected typo.75.21.124.148 (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I was pleased to see it is official that Kurth cannot be a reliable source since he is too emotionally attached to the story and his book reflects it. The parts based on Rathlef's notes are especially discounted and should not be used. We'll see what happens when the rewrite begins.Aggiebean (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the matter of chat to the administrator. Finneganw 00:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I think things are progressing not too badly. Do be careful what you wish for there as I can see problems ahead if too much of the 'story' is included. Keep away from that nonsense please. That is why I believe keeping the article short is the answer otherwise all the old rubbish will resurface again. Quite frankly I tend to think nothing else is required on the page than is currently present. It really is not worth much more time. Finneganw 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat is back once again adding unverifiable rubbish. I have placed information on DrKiernan's page. Would you please look at this? The solution to the whole article is brevity and accuracy. There should be no openings for POV inaccuracy using unverifiable 'information'. DrKiernan doesn't want lengthy evidence about Anderson. He just wants a response to his suggestion about organisation of the article. Chat has been unable to comprehend this request and has started once again with the rubbish Nurse story. His ranting is truly pathetic and he is definitely the 'odd' one out. Finneganw 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your entry on the discussion page. I am getting pretty exhausted by it all. I think we basically should stay with the outline that in on the page already. Broadening it is only going to cause countless grief. Anderson's 'story' is really made up of unverifiable fabrication. As such it has no place at wikipedia. Just please look over my current 'lead' response. I'm getting pretty sick of all of it. Bookworm is already going on about removing 'imposter' and putting in the rubbish about 'best known'. Finneganw 16:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you are also not on top of the world. I think DrKiernan is trying his best and just wants an outline of points and nothing else at this stage. Finneganw 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I added something on the Dr's page where you reported him. He's been warned several times and the other mod has recommended his removal. I don't know why this hasn't happened yet. He is the problem. (though bookworm will be another) Thanks for all you're doing, I'll check in again soon.Aggiebean (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If "being a problem" means that I'm not going to agree to your terminology or the details included wholesale or without discussion, yeah, I'm going to be a problem. I'm open to debate, but I don't agree with you on several points and that doesn't make me irrational or my opinions "garbage." I do agree with you on some points and am neutral on others. Neither of us own the article and discussion is required. It's also not appropriate to demand a warning or the removal of someone who disagrees with your perspective. There were a number of people who behaved pretty badly during the debate process over this article and I would like to see that avoided here. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Franziska Schanzkowska

I think the article should state that her legal name was Anastasia Manahan, she was commonly known as Anna Anderson, and she was probably someone named Franziska Schanzkowska. It should state that she was by far the best known of a number of women who claimed to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia and all of those claims are now conclusively proven false by the recovery of all of the Romanov remains and DNA testing. That's the way I'd like to see it worded. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any real objection to your new wording. She WAS in all likelihood Franziska and I am dying to get my hands on this new book you mentioned. Who's the author? Let's use Massie's book or some other historian's book as a reference rather than the news articles about this case, though. I'm a reporter and I have been annoyed by the mistakes that other reporters have made in their coverage of this case over the last 15 years. The articles are not written by people who know this case in depth and the articles have not always been accurate. Massie's book is the best I've seen on the DNA testing and what was actually done and where there was disagreement. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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.Aggiebean (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in the subject, so I'm interested in the book. It'll be interesting if someone managed to get the Schanzkowski family to talk and had access to records we haven't seen. Right now the DNA evidence and the other records we have make it all but certain that she was Franziska Schanzkowska, so it's not a question of me not believing that's most likely the case. It's a matter of odds. MtDNA only tells us is that someone is a maternal line relative of a particular family. Combine that with other evidence, such as genealogical evidence, residence, interviews with people who knew a person, physical descriptions, etc., and you come closer to an absolutely conclusive, air tight identity. I'm just not sure it's absolutely 100 percent there yet, though maybe it's 99 percent. It's certain that she was not Grand Duchess Anastasia. If someone actually interviewed the family and has access to more information, then we have more to add to the article, don't we? --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One moment please

Aggie is correct. We cannot take a POV and say she was "probably" or "most likely" Franziska. That is revisionist, since science has told us she was Franziska. Also, I agree, as an example, if Massie can be superceded by a better source, we should always use the better source. Aggie, I will remark only on one thing: you've got to ease up a little on the obsession of keeping Franziska totally away from HIH Anastasia, because that, too, is revisionist. How do you explain the big fraud if you don't have some type of connexion with the person she was pretending to be?!75.21.155.47 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

May I add?

The problem with the "legal" name etc. is easy. We establish that she is commonly known as Anna Anderson, which is fact. We follow with the aliases because that is how a fraud/alias-user is explained in descriptive briefs. This how it seems to look: she's commonly known as Anna Anderson. She has an a/k/a of "Mrs. Tchaikowsky" (which is funny because Thacikowsky is the Russian of Schanskowsky). Then she is misidentified, we won't get into that too deeply.

When she is married decades later, she is simply Mrs. Manahan and only her hubbie calls her "Anastasia". I cannot be sure if she legally used Anastasia when married... did she do that? They called her Anastasia Manahan, but was it legal? Or another alias? See, we must establish that sequence of aliases. Mostly, it should come before the part mentioning her marriage to Jack Manahan. Don't you see where I'm going with structure? Like an obituary, that lays her to rest.75.21.155.47 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is called ANNA ANDERSON. That should be her official name in the article as that is the name she is most known by and the one people will use to look her up. I have always heard Anastasia Manahan was the only legal name she ever had, but I am still not sure how she got it, marrying Jack, yes, but I have a hard time accepting the US immigration people wouldn't have been harder on her about her identity. She must have been basically a non person.Aggiebean (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Anderson basically was a non-person and since her real identity as Schankowska has been exposed she is a rather pathetic unimportant figure. Finneganw 02:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed

I agree totally. "Anna Anderson" is the commonly used/known alias. Now please note what I've put on the Anna talk page, too, please.75.21.155.47 (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Oops, a note here: I don't know with absoluteness, but I don't think there was any immigration question about it. I think by those standards, she'd have been free to say here 1st name was Anastasia, even to claim it as her legal 1st name. Why do Papadopoulis Greeks call themselves "Papas" at immigration? Because it's easier on the eyes and pronunciation. Immigration & other authorities wouldn't have given a hill of beans what the old bat called herself!75.21.155.47 (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

The whole discussion has gotten out of hand, admittedly, but you can't just have someone blocked because they don't agree with you, even if you consider their opinions irrational. This is a Wiki. They haven't done anything that I can see to get themselves blocked. If they start attacking you personally or trying to edit the article without consensus, that's a different matter. We did indeed make some progress. There was consensus to cut everything out except the lead. There is some agreement on how we can structure the article. Now there is a continuing argument over content, which is probably going to be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. No consensus on that has been reached and nothing can be added to the article without consensus. This page can be archived just like the other ones were and we can start again with the discussion. As far as responding to you on Finnegan's page, it might not be nice of me, but it's also annoying to have one's opinions referred to as "garbage," etc. Nothing on Wikipedia is really all that private. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are as bad as they are! Do you really think it's because I don't agree with them? It's not because they don't agree with me, it's because they have been historically disruptive and extreme and irrational! Both have been blocked and warned by the mods numerous times. I don't agree with YOU either but I don't want you blocked! It's their behavior that makes a mess of everything. They have both done more than enough to be blocked.Aggiebean (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going by their behavior of the last couple days. They're talking to you on the talk page of the article and on your talk page. I don't see them attempting to edit the article after being warned. The discussion is getting pretty heated and sometimes verges on insults on both sides, which is inappropriate, but hasn't risen to the level where I'd report them or insist they'd be blocked. There's definitely some eccentricity and extreme stubbornness in their responses. Honestly, I don't know that anyone involved is entirely rational on the subject after looking at that talk page. I'd probably suggest that the administrator block the page from all editing for a week or so, clear the talk page and let this die down for awhile and then come back at it when people have had a chance to cool off! I know I've had just about enough for now. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It has gotten to me, too, and a cooling off period is a good idea but it will inevitably turn out the same way once opened again. If you, Finneganw and I could discuss things without having to wade through the garbage of the other two, we could probably have an article ready in a couple of days.Aggiebean (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen your brand of scholarship and writing! Your absence was what led us to the consensus point we have now, and the article is going great. And please stop calling everyone else's recommendations "garbage". The 13-year-old has got to disobey the moderators who are really in charge now. They have asked you indirectly and politely to stop your silliness. What a pity it is you who refuses to cooperate.76.195.82.162 (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

NOW HEAR THIS

Aggiebean, I have reported the following on DrKiernan's talk page. God, aggie, just when we were getting to the answers, you just have to turn 13 again, don't you?? Read on.... "I ask for a pause and some study DrKiernan: aggiebean, I'm sorry to say, is simply up to her old bad habits. Just when we reached some consensus, just when we saw glimmers of solutions for presenting a newly written article, she has begun her rabid accusations against me, and has violated an instruction that she stop dredging up old non-existent usernames. You will easily read Talk: Anna Anderson and see how she is steering/commandeering the talk page yet again! Everyone else was working hard, trying their best, including me. Do you expect me to sit silent while she tries to bait me... for the second time in her career? Please intervene!75.21.155.47 (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)" Straighten up, or I think you will be the one regretting a bad decision here!75.21.155.47 (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And a respectful reminder

Aggiebean, you WILL STOP referring to me as "Rev", as you did in Bookworm's talk page. You've been warned about this, you know it well. You have already been reported to DrKiernan because it's time they saw what you are really doing over there. You really think I'm afraid of you, don't you? More and more people are seeing the real aggiebean... I'd be worried about that if I were you. You'll be the first to get blocked here this time. You yourself have seen to that.75.21.155.47 (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what is it that I'm 'doing over there?' You know you only reported me because I reported you and you want me to look like the bad guy. But sorry your LONG previous history speaks for itself.Would you please keep your ridiculous and unfounded accusations from polluting my talk page? I come here looking for real constructive discussion from Finneganw and Bookworm, not this mess. Talk about being 13, that is you.Aggiebean (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

?

I will only repeat it once out of courtesy, though it looks like you've stopped: do NOT try the tactic of calling me "Rev". As to the talk page here, it is yours and naturally you don't want the truth staring you in the face. You don't have such a pretty history yourself, and you didn't mind doing this sort of thing to others when it was truly unfair. Perhaps for at least a moment in your life you will do what I've tried to do many times: grow up and begin again.76.195.82.162 (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I've never been banned, blocked, warned, or asked to make myself vanish. You only think I have a 'bad' history because I don't usually agree with you. You admitted yourself to being "Rev" and even signed your whole name and showed us your myspace. As one mod said, once you vanish, come back and admit who you are, there is no more protection. Your rants are not helping anything around here, you know. They are only making pages longer, feelings harder, and everything more difficult.Aggiebean (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK

Wounding words, and a bit childish, but on the whole it's fair enough. Let me reply in fairness: RTV is usually invoked by a person who knows he won't be attacked as soon as he's gone, and falsely accused, etc. And, ummm, who was it said I was ChatNoir, said I was Kurth? There was by the way NO mod who ever said anything like "no protection"--and protection from what, aggiebean?

I was banned... why? Because you found a twisted and unfair admin who was sick of you brow-beating him, and was all too happy to impose an unfair ban. Why do you think he's gone now?--he got into trouble for abuses like that. I'm replying to you seriously. I know you cannot really make a serious answer to that. I'll stop this completely, right now, and will make the very easy effort to stay the heck away from your crazy talk page. I stand resolutely behind what I said before: I won't be insulted either.76.195.82.162 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we found a mod who took the time to read through the exchanges and determine who was at fault, and that was you. Please stop hindering progress with all these fits.Aggiebean (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also want to add that I am concerned since the new IP you're using is close to mine, though not in location. I hope no one thinks I am your sock.

I am sorry you have had to endure the above. Finneganw 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Answer

Much as I dislike him, ChatNoir has one thing down pat: you are insane. And not very bright either. I've warned you, I've tried working alongside you while you plotted ways to set me up--brava! Good work, you've got Nishkid in your pocket. Just remember all the things I TRIED telling you before. We made so much progress at Anna, and I saw you coming like a witch out of the fog. You won't rest til they come after you, and it will be soon. Don't worry about being my sock... you have enough of your own, genuine or dummies who do everything you tell them to do.75.21.149.82 (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I do hope this troll is gone for good.Aggiebean (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

Look, a person who was a fraud still lived a life, even if she had appropriated someone else's name. She lived, breathed, knew people, had friends, had a marriage, had dreams and ambitions, illnesses and hobbies, etc. It is inappropriate not to acknowledge the events of that life, which aren't in question. Or are you going to say that we don't know that she lived in Germany during World War II, married Jack Manahan, loved her pet cats, lived in a house that was condemned, believed she was being poisoned, knew and lived with people like Xenia Leeds, etc. etc. etc. Or that Franziska Schanzkowska was said to have put on airs, to have been the brightest of the children in her family and to have loved reading, that she supposedly was engaged, became mentally unbalanced and was injured in a munitions factory explosion? Acknowledging those things in a matter-of-fact fashion, just laying out the facts of her life without POV commentary, giving a well-rounded picture of who she was as an individual, doesn't have to amount to War and Peace, but the article must include the details of HER life, not just that she was a supposed fraud. The DNA results are one section of the article, not the only article, and none of it can contain adjectives like "ludicrous." Her significance in the public square is related to the myth that grew up around her and the movies that were based on her life and that needs to be included too. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good luck to Bookworm but I doubt very much indeed whether she/he can ever write a non-POV entry about Anderson/Schankowska as this hasn't been possible previously given the very long pro anything Kurth track record. Don't throw in the towel. Finneganw 13:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. Finneganw 15:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope what I wrote did not upset you. It certainly was never meant to. Best wishes. Finneganw 13:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is no mystery at all. It is all so blatantly obvious. I never ever believed in the fraud. Don't get upset though as that is what certain ones want to cause for you. Finneganw 07:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Same guy?

I saw your comment in Nishkid's usertalk page. Could you please elaborate? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, elaborate for this admin. This one is fair and mature. Just don't leave out your lies and remember to include all illegally deleted posts--you know, the ones that expose you. Bye now.75.21.114.176 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So it IS you! Why can't you find anything better to do than harass people online? As far as I know, nothing of mine was ever deleted. I have nothing to hide. The history speaks for itself.Aggiebean (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been advised that this place is not a battleground. I have nothing to hide. But please, even on your own talk page, stop pretending that you have nothing to hide. These creeps will turn on you, you know that! And once again, I'm asking you to refrain from your false and inflammatory remarks. I am harassing no one, I'm bothering no one. So post productively or 'shut yer trap'. We all have a right to edit here.76.195.93.15 (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Chat

Chat is more and more desperate and bizarre. Finneganw 9:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally correct! Finneganw 01:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought you should know I removed the rubbish from you know who that was entered here and reported it. Check the history page to see.Finneganw 17:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Aggiebean (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Just stick to your guns. We both know what the reality is with Anderson/Schankowska. Finneganw 17:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Curious things are happening. Finneganw 13:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Anderson

I don't really care about the anon, who I assumed was probably problematic what with posting under different urls. I actually spent some time going through your website this morning - it's quite useful in a lot of ways, although I think lacking in some of the very things that need to go in this article - in particular, a detailed chronology of AA's activities in the 20s and 30s. I'd add that I don't think that any particular specific thing was necessarily invalidated by the discovery that she was Anastasia. For instance, AA could very well have been Franziska Schankowska, and also have said "Of course I know who she is; that's papa's sister," when meeting Olga - those two ideas are not mutually exclusive in any way. All it would indicate is that she was coached, told Olga was coming, shown pictures of Olga so she'd recognize her, etc. If that anecdote is to be discredited, it has to be discredited on its own - that there's no reliable evidence she said such a thing, or what not. If there is some sort of pro-AA source which claims she said this, it seems valid to include it, so long as we are clear that it is an unverified comment from a pro-AA source and that there are other sources that deny such a thing occurred. Just because a source was written by someone who believed that AA was Anastasia does not mean that it is necessarily unreliable as a source for what AA said or did after 1920. Generally, there should be an insistence that any claims of that sort be sourced, and the article should be based on the most reliable sources - preferably sources not written by supporters - Massie seems to be the best source in this regard.

Beyond that, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, since I simply don't find your argument here persuasive at all. There are all kinds of articles on subjects that are a lot more controversial than AA, and the solution to problems with POV-pushing is never "reduce the article to a stub and permanently keep it that way." That's not how wikipedia works, and you're never going to convince me that this article is so special that it requires such a thing. john k (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the history speaks for itself. Even the mods understand. This is why we are now under strict control and consensus.Aggiebean (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to change your opinion. Finneganw 21:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not changing my opinion at all.Aggiebean (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

John Kenney

Your accusations [1] that User:John Kenney is a meatpuppet of Peter Kurth or ChatNoir are unfounded. John is a well-liked administrator who has been contributing here for years,[2] and he has training as a professional historian[3]. In fact, he started the article on Anderson [4]. DrKiernan (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Really?

I was sent by Peter Kurth? I write here under my own name, and I have repeatedly made clear my viewpoint on this subject, which is more or less what it's been for about six years now - that we ought to have an article about Anderson that discusses her life and makes clear she was not Anastasia. I'm sure my position strikes you as too soft on the Anderson supporters (and my own comments from 2003, if you look at them, strike me as too soft on the Anderson supporters) but I have a pretty long record of not being an Anna Anderson supporter. You can, for instance, read this usenet thread, where I actually argued with Peter Kurth about the subject and told him he was full of shit (I'm jlk7e). john k (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You were involved in those old googletalk battles? I wasn't even around the AA or Romanov online community back then. If you argued with him then, you should know all about AA supporters and why we can't give them an inch.

Oooh, the infamous 'flame away gnat' and 'torch passing'! I've read this, classic!

"Steven, you are an incredible asshole and, what is more, a cad. I said that I trust Greg and Penny to carry the torch -- you know, of honest inquiry. (No, probably you don't.) They can and will reach their own conclusions, and it is still the case that, whether or they find themselves among "her trusted champions and defenders," the word "trusting" ought to give you a clue that I had in mind those people who knew her while she was alive.

Your callous, ugly and sadistic attitude toward this unfortunate woman has never ceased to amaze and disgust me. You are a true representative of the vipers she had to deal with all her life.

Flame away -- gnat!" PK

Okay I believe you, I know you don't believe in AA. However, doesn't it tell you something that bookworm and Chat (who is probably Kurth) have vanished since you started taking on a cause they support? If the AA supporters are on your side, you must be on the wrong one.

Aggiebean (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not accept that, and I'm not sure that the lesson is that we "can't give them an inch." Chat seems to be an eminently unreasonable editor, but my general sense is that it is only in very rare instances that being reasonable and trying to come to a mutually agreeable solution doesn't help things. (What makes you think he is Kurth, btw? It seems to me that Kurth is normally pretty willing to put his own name out there on Anderson-related subjects, and there's plenty of other people who have read his book and become pro-AA enthusiasts.) It may be that it is impossible for this article to turn out in a way that both you and Chat find agreeable. But putting in the effort is useful because it demonstrates which side is being unreasnable. As it stands now, you and finneganw are being just as unreasonable as Chat. It's true of course that you are correct about who Anna Anderson was, and Chat is incorrect, but that only goes so far. And the best way to stop Andersonian meddling with the article in the future is to have a good, consensus article to which we can revert pro-Anderson changes. An article which doesn't even have a biography will never be a good, consensus article - you can see that most of the previously uninvolved editors basically agree with me on this. And that means that as soon as an Andersonian decides to add a bunch of nonsense, it'll be much, much harder to simply revert it, because what you're reverting it to will be an article that basically only you and finnegan support. It obviously gets to be quite a tricky subject in terms of what exactly the content should be, but I remain convinced that it's the only way to proceed. Beyond that, what evidence do you have that Chat is particularly on my side? As you yourself say, Chat has vanished since I first commented on the talk page. Even if he is "on my side," I don't see that it matters. All that says is that Chat is pretty much always going to be against you. Which we already knew. john k (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It all goes back to the fact that we have been through it all and know for sure that you can't work rationally with Chat, and that he and other supporters will always try to make it look like she was Anastasia any way they can. There will be edit wars. I do not understand why discredited nonsense needs to be put in a fact based, informational article. Why do I think he's Kurth? Lots of reasons. Mainly, if you review the archives of the AA talk page, way back before I even came here, you'll see Kurth there, acting exactly like Chat, then when he is suspended, "Chat" appeared immediately and repeating the same exact rhetoric. I have argued with Chat on several sites both openly on forums and extensively in private. I have also been insulted by and fought with Kurth. They are one in the same, and I am not the only one who thinks so. Finnegan knows it too, as to the girl from one of my forums who had the same experiences I did with him, as well as the no less than six people who warned me he was Kurth when he first appeared on AP before I found out the hard way myself (I didn't believe it totally until he proved it to me) Also, he used to post on one forum as Kurth saying something, and then post as Chat on another saying exactly the same things. In fights, his temper, attitude and insults are identical. Why isn't he putting his name on it here? Well, as you can see, he got in trouble here. He made a fool of himself on the googletalk sites and AP. He is perhaps trying to salvage his professional rep by doing his dirty work under a false name. Those who claim Kurth has 'better things to do' are very wrong, no, he is obsessed with AA and the legacy he thought he was leaving behind but now sees it slipping away if people stop believing in AA, so he fights for it. There's no need going on about this here, next thing you know IP75 will copy and paste it and run to a mod's talk page and try to get them to yell at me. But I answered your question, and I am confident of my conclusions. I'm not always right, like I was wrong about you being Kendrick and I admit it. People have accused me of being someone I wasn't, too. A lot of suspicion goes around when these things get heated, and so many people do use aliases. But the Kurth/Chat connection is one thing no one will ever convince me out of. Oh, did I tell you also that he posted two different pictures claiming to be him (Chat) on my site and others, and then deleted one, and that the other one he left was actually an NBC employee? Hey I've been on rock music pages where teenagers do that kind of thing, and yes I've even known middle aged women go to great lengths to invent a false life to try to validate the reality of their alter ego, some even make them myspaces. Once you start pretending to be someone else, it's just far too humiliating to confess you were a fake- hey, kind of like AA! Oh, and don't bother to talk about IPs, I know from my site Chat posts from an LA IP and Kurth VT. However, this doesn't mean he's actually in LA. He likely has two homes, but more than likely he's just using an LA IP. As a mod on other forums, I've seen people bounce their IP, use programs to show up from all different places, and use proxy blockers. I knew one woman who used dialup connections from various other states, posted, then unplugged them before they could be pinged. People are strange, have too much time on their hands and teamed with modern technology I am suspicious of almost everything and no longer surprised by anything. IPs are not the giveaway they once were. I have found that personality, attitude, rhetoric and catch phrases give a person away a lot faster than an IP.Aggiebean (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting read, I am still honored by your conviction that I am Kurth. But you have to do your homework better. I know who you are, and I know who Finneganw is, but I am not posting your names here. All I can say, is that you look very nice in your pink dress on a certain website. How come you are not signing your recent contributions to the talk page? ChatNoir24 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You get 1st notification

Yes it's ME, and I am officially objecting to the external link to your crummy website from Anna Anderson. I know how you shoehorned it in there, but that is going too far. Cheap, sloppy and typically hillbilly!75.21.147.159 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Duel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North and South (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)