User talk:Ferrymansdaughter: Difference between revisions
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==June 2009 - [[Anna Anderson]]== |
==June 2009 - [[Anna Anderson]]== |
||
#{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]. Please note that you have been reported for your POV alterations. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> --[[User:Finneganw|Finneganw]] 14:31, 2 June2009 (UTC |
#{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]. Please note that you have been reported for your POV alterations. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{1|}}}|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> --[[User:Finneganw|Finneganw]] 14:31, 2 June2009 (UTC |
||
Report away - I notice you have changed it back so doesn't that mean you are engaged in an edit war? I merely removed some supposition and personal comment ie "themost ludicrous" and added reference to court testimony which is fact, not supposition.[[User:Ferrymansdaughter|Ferrymansdaughter]] ([[User talk:Ferrymansdaughter#top|talk]]) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
It should be noted that [[Ferrymansdaughter]] was banned for extensive distortion of fact and abuse of contributors at the Alexander Palace discussion board due to a failure to accept proven historical fact. His/her agenda is to push Anderson was Anastasia. That is unacceptable. Wikipedia does not accept pushing proven discredited information. --[[User:Finneganw|Finneganw]] 14:34, 2 June2009 (UTC) |
It should be noted that [[Ferrymansdaughter]] was banned for extensive distortion of fact and abuse of contributors at the Alexander Palace discussion board due to a failure to accept proven historical fact. His/her agenda is to push Anderson was Anastasia. That is unacceptable. Wikipedia does not accept pushing proven discredited information. --[[User:Finneganw|Finneganw]] 14:34, 2 June2009 (UTC) |
||
I certainly was NOT "banned for extensive distortion of fact and abuse of contributors at the Alexander Palace discussion board due to a failure to accept proven historical fact." This is complete and utter fabrication. I closed my account at the AP due to the abuse and outrageous comments directed at Richard Schweitzer, Gleb Botkin's son in law, after he took time to discuss his personal knowledge of AA. I suggest you contact Lisa Davidson ito check this since I sent her an e mail at the time. . Now I am being subjected to personal abuse and lies simpoly because I don't agree with you. I'd like to see you prove your libellous accusation. [[User:Ferrymansdaughter|Ferrymansdaughter]] ([[User talk:Ferrymansdaughter#top|talk]]) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
It should also be noted that this woman has for years embraced the cause that Anderson was Anastasia and apparently the DNA results have done nothing to change this.Sadly she still believes the 'opinion' that AA could be AN is just as valid at the one that she was not and wants it told, but it's not an opinion anymore once it's proven wrong- even if it is, it's incorrect info that has no place in the article. People who cannot give up their personal fantasy that AA was AN and everyone conspired against her have no business editing this article.[[User:Aggiebean|Aggiebean]] ([[User talk:Aggiebean|talk]]) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
It should also be noted that this woman has for years embraced the cause that Anderson was Anastasia and apparently the DNA results have done nothing to change this.Sadly she still believes the 'opinion' that AA could be AN is just as valid at the one that she was not and wants it told, but it's not an opinion anymore once it's proven wrong- even if it is, it's incorrect info that has no place in the article. People who cannot give up their personal fantasy that AA was AN and everyone conspired against her have no business editing this article.[[User:Aggiebean|Aggiebean]] ([[User talk:Aggiebean|talk]]) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
Frankly I don#t know who the hell she was. I used to think she was Anastasia, now |'m not sure. What I am sure of is that suppression of other people's opinion belongs in a fascist state. You have no business editing this article because of your irrational ability to allow discussion of alternatives, no matter how far fetched you may find them.[[User:Ferrymansdaughter|Ferrymansdaughter]] ([[User talk:Ferrymansdaughter#top|talk]]) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 21:12, 2 June 2009
June 2009 - Anna Anderson
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Please note that you have been reported for your POV alterations. . Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Finneganw 14:31, 2 June2009 (UTC
Report away - I notice you have changed it back so doesn't that mean you are engaged in an edit war? I merely removed some supposition and personal comment ie "themost ludicrous" and added reference to court testimony which is fact, not supposition.Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that Ferrymansdaughter was banned for extensive distortion of fact and abuse of contributors at the Alexander Palace discussion board due to a failure to accept proven historical fact. His/her agenda is to push Anderson was Anastasia. That is unacceptable. Wikipedia does not accept pushing proven discredited information. --Finneganw 14:34, 2 June2009 (UTC)
I certainly was NOT "banned for extensive distortion of fact and abuse of contributors at the Alexander Palace discussion board due to a failure to accept proven historical fact." This is complete and utter fabrication. I closed my account at the AP due to the abuse and outrageous comments directed at Richard Schweitzer, Gleb Botkin's son in law, after he took time to discuss his personal knowledge of AA. I suggest you contact Lisa Davidson ito check this since I sent her an e mail at the time. . Now I am being subjected to personal abuse and lies simpoly because I don't agree with you. I'd like to see you prove your libellous accusation. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It should also be noted that this woman has for years embraced the cause that Anderson was Anastasia and apparently the DNA results have done nothing to change this.Sadly she still believes the 'opinion' that AA could be AN is just as valid at the one that she was not and wants it told, but it's not an opinion anymore once it's proven wrong- even if it is, it's incorrect info that has no place in the article. People who cannot give up their personal fantasy that AA was AN and everyone conspired against her have no business editing this article.Aggiebean (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Frankly I don#t know who the hell she was. I used to think she was Anastasia, now |'m not sure. What I am sure of is that suppression of other people's opinion belongs in a fascist state. You have no business editing this article because of your irrational ability to allow discussion of alternatives, no matter how far fetched you may find them.Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)