User talk:Ferrymansdaughter
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)
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)
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)
By the way the court testimony was not accepted as fact. Anderson did not win her case. Do some basic research and you will find this out. Once again you are pushing a false agenda. You cannot fool people here. --Finneganw 23:55, 2 June 2009 (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)
FA did not want Schweitzer to perpetuate his fantasies on a historical forum. Here is what he told Schweitzer:
I'm done. I'm locking the thread. I will no longer tolerate this bull***t. No more game playing. We will no longer provide this forum as a place for Richard Schweitzer to propogandize his theories, much less call them "truth". They aren't.
Take your fairy tales elsewhere Schweitzer, you had a chance to actually answer questions, but you just won't. You are as much a FRAUD sir, as FS was masquerading under the name of Anna Manahan pretending to be the long deceased Anastasia Nicholaievna. The reason you are a fraud is that the tissue sample was NOT "putative" according to you until you did not get the results you wanted. YOU had no doubt as to whom the sample belonged, until, surprise, the answer wasn't the one you liked. Then suddenly, it becomes "putative". Go away you humbug, you hypocritical obfuscator. Come back when you have some genuine facts or evidence, and have the "cojones" to actually take a position and prove it.Take your crap elsewhere, we will not be party to your deception any longer.Aggiebean (talk) 02:13, 3 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)
My how you do go on Ferrymansdaughter when you are exposed. None of your discredited inaccurate agenda will wash here. The alterations you have attempted to make have already been exposed. You are a fanatical Anderson is Anastasia supporter. That can be clearly seen by reading your attempted distortion. It is time you accepted proven historical fact. Sadly you don't seem to be able to undertake basic research or understand history. You will be reported if you choose to blatantly vandalise this article any further. Use the sandbox to your heart's content if you wish to push discredited information. You are the one trying to impose gross inaccuracies. Don't try to twist things around as anybody with a modicum of knowledge knows Anderson was a total fraud and that she was genetically Schankowska. That is why there is no separate page and you know that. Just so you can understand - Anderson had no links genetically at all with any Romanovs or their relatives. Therefore she cannot be Anastasia at all. The one she did have genetic links with was Schankowska. It's as simple as that. Anastasia's body has also been found and proven to be hers by extensive testing in highly respected laboratories in many different countries. Also you fail to point out when you rant that Schweitzer on the Alexander Palace discussion board was attempting to carry on gross inaccuracies and was exposed for supporting a fraud simply because he couldn't deal with answering basic questions when the going go tough. The Forum Administrator exposed him. You were trying to defend the indefensible. The game is up. Anderson has been exposed as a fraud. Don't try and continue the edit war that ChatNoir and his many guises started here. Also do read about wikipedia's attitude to placing disproven material into articles as a 'source'. It is not acceptable.Finneganw 23:52, 2 June2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I do indeed understand "basic history" since I have a history degree.
I'm not interested in an "edit war", merely in correcting POV statements by you and your pal Annie. I am also sick of these totally unwarranted and outrageous personal attacks by you simply because I disagree with you. Mr Schweitzer was asked to present his opinions based on his personal knowledge of AA', that is what he did. It is not supporting a fraud for him to say "I knew her, I don't believe she was a fake". The way he was treated is exactly the way you are treating me or Chat or anyone who disagrees with you. It makes me wonder why you behave in such a fashion.
As for "reporting," please remove your libellous comments or I will report you for making personal attacks. Your comments definitely fall into the following category "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence "Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Pushing discredited 'sources'
You should read the following carefully as it comes from the Anna Anderson discussion page from Trusilver :
I will give one opinion on this and allow it to be interpreted as you will: Every person that achieves any form of celebrity status during their lifetime will eventually (especially after they are dead and can't pursue claims of libel) have something written about them that is patently false and easily provable as such. Fringe authors have repeatedly written books detailing life events of famous historical figures that conflict with the writings of others. In these situations, it has been past Wikipedia practice to not lend weight to that which can be easily disproven. Not every opinion is equal and Wikipedia does not have any obligation to give equal weight to all sides of an obviously lopsided disagreement of fact. That being said, I'm going to to open an RfC today for this article (bear with me, I'm busy today) and perhaps we will get some other opinions. Trusilver 16:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Finneganw 23:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)