User talk:ChatNoir24

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, ChatNoir24! I am I dream of horses and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

I dream of horses (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Anderson[edit]

Please note that it is not good enough at wikipedia if you wish to reference an article to simply place the name of the author. You must also include the page number. If you do not do this you are not appropriately referencing and your entry will be removed as being unreferenced and invalid. If you have issues use the discussion page at Anna Anderson or if you wish to experiment use the sandbox.User:Finneganw 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009 - Editing concerns on Anna Anderson[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war using numerous different aliases. Please note that you have been reported for your consistent 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 01:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV? Well, THAT is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. I don't care if you block me or not, you VANDALIZED my work! ChatNoir24 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is extremely POV and grossly inaccurate. It does you no credit. Anna Anderson is a proven historical fraud. She was never ever in any way connect to the murdered Grand Duchess Anastasia. That has been 100% proved. She never in fact ever visited Russia. The Romanov family never ever met her before the revolution and those that did after she decided to fling herself into the Berlin Canal found Anderson bizarre and pathetic in the extreme. Kurth's book is completely discredited and based on hearsay and what many would call invention. It is therefore not at all valid as a source. There are lots of other books on different topics that are inaccurate as well. That does not mean they are credible sources or taken seriously. You consistently wish to malign any real historical figure who knew the real Grand Duchess Anastasia as they do not suit your agenda. You certainly malign Grand Duchess Anastasia and members of her blood family on a regular basis. That is not acceptable in any shape or form. You are the only one wishing to keep up the nonsense and you are the source of the edit war. You make no attempt to take part constructively on the discussion page. Instead you push your POV agenda. POV opinions backed by inaccurate sources are not acceptable at wikipedia. No other contributor to the Anna Anderson page continues to push your bizarre agenda. You are the only one who fails to see reality and continue to vandalise the page using fraudulent sources like you have done at other websites where you have been banned. Your rants and belligerence are extremely well documented in the wikipedia archive pages. I suggest you stop. Your willingness to be banned indicates an inability to see the matter clearly. Finneganw 04:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finneganw is right. AA was a fraud, and those who helped her cause were wrong. They, and you and other supporters to this day, attack the character of people like Olga A. saying they would believe AA was AN yet deny her for money. This is cruel and wrong. Listen to yourself about Gilliard, saying he talked Shura and Olga out of accepting her. Do you really think if she'd been real Olga A. would have just said, ok Gilliard, whatever you say? No, they denied her because they knew she was fake and she turned out to be right! The slant put in the story over the years by Rathlef and Botkin that AA was some poor put upon creature denied by her friends and family for greed is horrible- to the people falsely accused because of the fraud who was AA! Her supporters should be ashamed and so should you. It's time the propaganda is taken out of the story and let the truth speak for itselfAggiebean (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd warning - May 2009 - Editing concerns on Anna Anderson[edit]

You currently are engaged in an edit war using numerous different aliases. This is the 2nd time you have been warned. Please note that you have been reported for your consistent POV alterations using discredited sources. . 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 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This S*it[edit]

I don't know how i got in to this shit. I just saw a non-wikipedia (see ChatNoir24) and requested speedy deletion for it. I am not included in this soup and i have nothing to say. Highest Heights (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009 - Vandalism on Anna Anderson[edit]

You persist in an edit war using numerous different aliases on the Anna Anderson page. This is the 3rd time you have been warned. Please note that you have been reported for your consistent and extreme POV alterations using highly inaccurate discredited sources against wikipedia policy. 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 03:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing discredited 'sources'[edit]

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 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat, you need to seriously stop trying to add that shaky nurse garbage as fact. The date is not proveable and should not be presented that way >She even told the paper 1922 then tried to backdate it, no doubt at Rathlef's insistence to predate the Clara P. incident. The nurse herself was unsure of the date and all of us cannot even be sure it even happened or was made up by Rathlef and the nurse to help her cause. Every time you put it in one of us is going to take it out and we're all going to get called for edit warring. Just give it up.Aggiebean (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more attempts at pushing discredited sources from Chat. Vandalism will continue to be reverted. You have had repeated warnings about adding this inaccurate rubbish from the discredited unobjective Kurth. It is unacceptable at wikipedia. 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat, you forget that I DO have evidence to back up Rathlef's 'remembering' stories being false- AA was not AN, therefore she couldn't have had memories from another person's life. There are only two possibilities to explain it, neither of which you will like. One is that Rathlef completely invented the whole story and fed her the memories from books. She obviously had books there or how could she verify if AA was right or not? She even says in her own writings 'if it is right I will tell you.' How would she know? She never knew the family. She had to have Romanov source material featuring details of the family in front of her, which means she could use that to feed AA memories. The only other option is that AA herself tricked Rathlef with fake memories, having gotten them from books and/or emigres herself. I go with it being Rathlef's fault, since I do not believe at the time AA was healthy or mentally stable enough to mastermind such a plot. As AA herself once said "All this is the fault of Frau Rathlef."Aggiebean (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CC for your reference[edit]

Chat, though I think you deserve to have had this shoved at you by the other evildoers against you, I'm CC'ing you for your reference and I hope this ends all the Anna Anderson nonsense. That article must be saved. The truth is understood already by everyone about the subject... but this is another matter:

--- On Sat, 6/6/09, REV. ANTONIO HERNANDEZ wrote:

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.htm76.195.94.220 (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

I asked everyone at Talk:Anna Anderson who had been involved in the previous disputes to first gain consensus on the talk page before making edits that you know other editors will have a problem with. Now I'm telling you specifically, do not make another major edit on that article without gaining consensus for it on the talk page. As I said there, there are various ways of dealing with the content dispute, but starting another edit war is not one of them. Please consider this your final warning regarding contentious edits on the Anna Anderson article. AlexiusHoratius 22:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Anderson[edit]

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 04:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, belly up, or did you get slammed too[edit]

OY! ChatNoir! Foolish though some of your posts may be, where are you? Sitting around laughing with a digit in the wrong place as usual? You think aggie and finn are funny? You think that piece of crap article is worth it?75.21.107.92 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder, though your intentions are honorable, if you quote ONE thing from Kurth, aggiebean's going to have your guts for breakfast. In any event, you do duel so well with her. Frankly I'd love to see more of the basic factual stuff in there without her harping for 3 months about it. Keep trying. Kurth may have lost a lot of respect in my eyes lately, but his book is still THE book and I do not fault his facts. I agree that aggiebean, as I've told her over and over, should produce citations or shut her yap. That's how she got me banned from posting anywhere on the subject. That admin Nishkid doesn't always seem fair or stable, watch our for him...unless he's you ;)75.21.99.125 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Dropped in to say, I like your posts so far, recently. It is clear that they all want one thing one day and one thing the next day. You keep them honest and go on doing it; you've done more good than anyone else. Incidentally, I think you should PUSH LIKE HELL to get them to include data about people's perceptions of Anna. They wouldn't let it in for 3 1/2 years. Now see how everyone avoids the page entirely. But just wait for aggiegirl to start ranting and raving like a psycho again! And...I wonder if they've flogged finnie yet. He got into some hot water but he hasn't been kicked off the subject as I was. :075.21.105.228 (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar and spice and Anna Anderson[edit]

Hey, just a line to say the entry looks really good. I did whine a bit about overly long paragraphs--what I meant there was content--but it is good overall. My above post still stands though: there needs to be more of a human or human-interest quality to the page. It seems that no one has ever really touched on what the whole Anastasia story meant to generations like mine. And my parents as well. As far as they were concerned, Anastasia was alive and well. Mama especially never stopped believing, though my father was a bigger skeptic. Where is all that feeling in the entry? It seems you and Kiernan are still haunted by the wicked witch of WikiFartSwamp: aggiebean. Well unless you are some weird manifestation of her, I think she's fallen off her twig. So why let her old bullying shadow your heels? Cut away some of that dried-up old crap on the page, and add some LIFE to it!75.21.156.77 (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Dear[edit]

Hey Chat have you noticed that Annie is back (but not signing in) going on about how biased the new article is and how you were banned from this that and the other? I thought she'd given up now her little Australian pal has been told to desist, but apparently not. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Kiernan-skew at Anna Anderson[edit]

This is getting a bit odd, as you said about the quote I have objected to; have you noticed this thing is skewing in the direction of Kiernan being the sole author, mediator, contributor and attention-getter? No suprirsse Nikkimaria rejected the half-assed article, and she told me herself she's avoiding any further contact because "it is too controversial." What I'm finding controversial is Kiernan's obsessive and exclusive involvement. Just try to make an innocent edit to the article, any little thing, improve some grammar somewhere, and watch Kiernan erase it. I can't bitch at him anymore: Nishkid64-The-Vanished-Pitbull-admin put a permanent semiprotection on Kiernan's page.76.195.81.239 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped by to suggest you read all my horrifically detailed suggestions at Anna Anderson. I still think Kiernan, even if he does engage with you, Chat, is hogging this thing too much. In the end it doesn't matter what I think about the article...but do you like Kiernan running away with all the glory when Anna's WikiShitpedia page becomes famous? I helped that man build the skeleton of the article he now has nearly completed. Yet he refuses to listen to me. So I don't whine abou that. Just don't want to see ANY of the hard-working editors left out of the kudos for this thing. I promise you, when it's well done and finished, it'll be one hell of an award-winning article. Maybe even the real world will consider it as mitigating for Wikipedia.76.195.83.35 (talk) 07: 08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, I can take a hint, contrary to common belief around here. No one's working on Anna, no one cares about the damned entry...therefore I surmise weird goings-on will soon be afoot. Meanwhile, I will continue to rag away on the talk page. That article is a goddamned mess. Too bad, at one point it was almost excellent.76.195.83.35 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, dropped in again because I thought you might like to look at the new "activity" at Anna Anderson. Well, on the talk page at least. I wish you'd jump in there and get Kiernan talking. Apparently some fresh blood has appeared and they are asking why this thing isn't a single paragraph about a fraud!75.21.115.123 (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection notice[edit]

"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)"

QUOTE from my post at Anna Anderson, a message I left for aggie-girl who is still around and PRETENDING to be away from the Anna project. I don't fancy trying to go ahead and remove it myself in protest, because Kiernan would have it back in 5 minutes--and have us all booted off again. Just wanted you to see I'm still fighting...for something better.75.21.147.159 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going back to fight, the Wikipedia article is not that good, but it is better than the mess that was. As for Aggiebean's Website, read the 161 guest comments. I have picked her article to pieces, and she still thinks I am Peter Kurth. ChatNoir24 (talk)

It is actually valiant of you not to go back. We're chasing our tails with Kiernan. As for agg's website, it stinks and I cannot bear to look at it...like looking at a dropped sandwich on the street. Maybe worse. Oh, say, did you see?? BOTH external links were removed: agg's and the one to Peter Kurth's Anna bio! As far as you being Kurth, I sometimes wish you were. Last time Peter emailed me, he said he was going to lay low and not move til his friends had published their new book, and that was over a year ago.ElKeKomeIKanta (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kiernan is obviously afraid of ANY controversy, and this is mirrored in the article. He also includes hearsay, which is disappointing. As for Aggiebean's website, I have had a lot of fun picking it apart. (See her Guestbook). She is still under the impression that I am Peter Kurth. Which of Peter Kurth's external links is removed? Are we talking about his website? King and Wilson's new book is delayed due to their discovery of new material from the trial, and will not be published until next spring. Are you a member of AGRBear's website? http://agrbear.hyperboards.com/index.php ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly...I'm not a member of the site you mention. Looks promising! If I do not get hounded, I will surely enjoy it. Now, I think you are correct about the heresay-- and I might add extremely sloppy nature-- in and of the entry. Though I've had not the pleasure of reading your arguments contra aggs, I will.

No, the two external links and only two consisted of aggsie and Peter's website. When I myself removed hers, Peter's was removed the following day without comment. I suppose I avoid both your recommended site and aggsy's guestbook for the same reasons you avoid the talk page here. It's all getting so sickening.

Before I take leave, I'm so glad you mentioned names to me, which Peter wouldn't, so I can watch for their book.Check me, I joined and logged into the site over there. I see your photo and lucky you!!! But you know what, I KNOW aggsy's over there too. Did you see her latest post under the differences between Franziska and HIH? Telltale weird I-want-to-rant-but-I-can't rhetoric and lots of all caps and exclamation points. ElKeKomeIKanta (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Anderson...can we do it somehow?[edit]

Chat--you are I suspect much smarter than me around these parts...is there no way to nominate Anna for deletion? I mean, based on the fact that the citation list (I think) is the longest one on this site. I'm not actually asking for a jump-in from you, only advice. The admins I might approach will smell me a mile away and won't respond. I know you probably get the same treatment, but maybe you know an admin...?

Have a gander at the article I left on the talk page. THAT is good writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.148.67 (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that little synopsis has several mistakes in it as well, and the story of Anna Anderson is much too complex to be told in a few lines. The article as it stands, is not the best, but much better than the mess it was before. ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you never got to see my last message because some asshole admin seems to have erased a post I made here...and I was just trying to point out that the article is an excellent example of condensed writing. Anna's story is not more complex, just a bit longer, that is all. They could allow more people to input to fix that mess. Those citations! It's the longest list here!75.21.102.1 (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse New Intrusion[edit]

Chat, look:

I quote from my talk page: "The recent edit you made to User talk:ChatNoir24 has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Falcon8765 (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)"

ME replying on Falcon's page: "What I wish to know is, I am aware of the error I made with regard to editing a couple of items...but why did you see fit to delete my new message in its entirety? That had nothing to do with the action you refer to above. And I would really appreciate it if admins left my new messages alone.75.21.102.1 (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Falcon8765"

This is shit I don't want to start again. I'm disappearing off here a while. As my mother used to say, Suerte!75.21.102.1 (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions That I'd Like You To Answer[edit]

Chat, before shuffling off this crap-coil, I wanted to ask some questions. I hope they aren't dull in your opinion, but a new lead for the future. You may correct me when I am mistaken...but I have surgery early next week, and if you can, email me at <EricBlair@disciples.com> with replies. It's important, you know.

What was the significance of Anna's identity to King George V and King George VI? What might have resulted if Anna was ruled to be HIH, and had become de jure Empress? Where did the proof come from that Anna's mtDNA was genuine? What is the actual status of the remains of the Royal Family?--did they really find them all? As I know for myself, HIH G.D. Maria Vladimirovna of Madrid does not believe the remains are Romanovs...and she pestered Yeltsin forever about this subject. But why? How close were HIH the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna and Queen Mary? Why are the forensic comparisons made from Anna to these others now swept under the rug? Hopefully you will forgive me, remember, I have a date with destiny next week and may be out of it for a long while...but my wife can check my email for me in my absence. This means a lot, if you could indulge me.

Also, do you know what is the new which evidence prevented the publication of the new book?ElKeKomeIKanta (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You-Know-Whom has a comment[edit]

Cat, I hope you are not involved in this--you know what I mean. I am not terribly computer savvy. That doesn't mean I am stupid.75.21.98.98 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have given up a long time ago. I doubt that very many people come here to read this article.ChatNoir24 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is to the new ass-whoopin', which seems to have originated from a complaint about a post made to your (this) talk page. Nothing to do in actual fact with your reference above.75.21.122.138 (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Problem[edit]

It seems that Trusilver...remember him?...dredged up an old username and found an infinite-times-a-thousand block placed on that nonexistent username. The block was placed by some admin dragged in at the time for the sole purpose of blocking it. But then, it no longer existed and all that fell through. That username does not exist, and did not exist since I believe it was early 2009. Now it was dredged up to block MY former username, based, it seems, on some trumped-up charge about editing done HERE. The way Trusilver and gang did this was by connecting my username as a sockpuppet of that nonexistent username. I was forced to open a new account just to be able to post...they expected that and jumped on me for abusing multiple accounts. All accusations are false and they are bullshit--not to mention the gaming of the system by these people. If none of this rings a bell, I apologize, but it looked awfully weird. It made it point at least one finger at you Chat.75.21.101.124 (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no fingers pointed at me have ever found any misbehavings. Our two ladies of perpetual misery, Finneganw and Aggiebean, both tried to oust me with their lies and false accusations, but to no avail. I have always been ChatNoir on every board I have ever been on, and I have never taken part in any of the childish games that have been going on. That's why I am still around, while the rest seem to have evaporated. ChatNoir24 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, I did not really want to imply you were a guilty party...it's the way they used your username to get to me. In any case, I am not being bullying or angry but I have to say I feel very strongly I cannot trust you. You have not been entirely open or supportive, even though I did not always deserve it. Then with Trusilver's magically renewed interest and the pointing of some controversial post HERE...well, that is why I asked to terminate our email correspondence. Trusilver seemed to know a lot about it. Again, I'm not angry nor am I really pointing the finger at you. It saddens me, and I hope my suspicious nature is completely errant, but I must take care for the moment. Now I know how Peter feels.75.21.119.97 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I have not been entirely open and supportive? In spite of your attacks on me in the discussion, you expect me to be supportive? And as for Peter Kurth, here is a quote from you: "This way Kurth is not left out, which is not for us to decide to do either, because we have to in a way expose him. And this way, it is painfully clear that Kurth can be inferred to be fraudulent! The article itself, if well handled, can be a future source for others to show Kurth for what he really is! I've asked DrKiernan for opinion on this also.75.21.155.47 (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2009". Yes, I am SURE you know how he feels!````

Easy up there, old-timer. I recall going against you, sure, but that is because I felt you were persisting in the same agenda I had there. Insisting Anna is Anastasia was no way to get the thing done.

Plus I feel it is vital to bow to science. What we knew and how we knew it would have just gotten us in trouble faster. And yes, I had absolutely NO trust or confidence in you, because you had a way of disappearing when I was fighting over there.

Then you'd reappear and make me look foolish--you know Aggie, she tried to say we were each other's sockpuppet or something. And you just sat by and said nothing, sometimes for over a month at a time. So don't rail quite so loudly against me, just because I do not repeat Kurth's unbending attitude doesn't mean I lack understanding.

Really, man, do you not read the tone of the talk pages? You really couldn't see where it was going? I was always there, always honest and if I am a flip-flopper, at least I err on the side of rational article-writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.80.62 (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berle[edit]

Hello, ChatNoir24. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...and now you are edit warring, apparently with the aid of a sock puppet -- which, I see above, is an old habit of yours. I'm going to request some administrative assistance here. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Anna Anderson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKiernan (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

When I saw your recent edit-warring and persistent failure to provide a reliable source at Milton Berle, I assumed you must be a new editor who didn't understand Wikipedia's requirements, so I came to your talk page to give you some information and advice. However, I then saw, to my great surprise, that you were by no means a new editor, so I looked further at your editing history. It very soon became clear that you know full well about various relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including the policy on edit-warring, the need for reliable sources, and the fact that some anonymous person creating a Wikipedia account and saying "I have personal contact with the person in question, so I know" is not a reliable source. It was also clear that you have a history of disruptive editing, and refusal to accept Wikipedia policies, so much so that when I checked to see how many times you have been blocked, I was truly astonished to see that you have so far escaped without any blocks. I then looked at your recent editing on another article, Anna Anderson, where you have been edit-warring, and also misrepresenting a source. I also saw that your disruptive editing on that article goes back more than five years. In view of all that, I have blocked you for editing for three days. Under the circumstances, I regard that as a minimal block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]