^^James^^
Discussion Page
From Zarove.
James, you wrote this.
You have to back up your assertions. For example, if you want to claim that she has lied about being a member of the American School of Classical Studies, provide some evidence and documentation, else your claim should be considered baseless.
I have evidence. I was a reporter. Idid a story on her. Trust me, I could have posted a lot mor personal informaiton, but only posted what was alreayd made known. IE, her real name. Dr.Price made that available in publications.
I called the American Society for Greek Studies, and they have no record of her as a member. I am not placing this evidnece in because it is superfluous to the artilce, it is sufficient for me to tell others that the society has no record of her as a member. And perhaps post a link to their website, so others cna confirm. WOudl this be better for you?
The 'Theme of Books' section is no place for criticism. Criticism must be balanced and present a fair representation of what she actually writes. Provide direct quotes to illustrate the claims she makes so that we can see for ourselves what she actually says first, then criticise her position. Otherwise it might look as though you were misrepresenting her position, then attacking your own misrepresentation. The well known straw-man fallacy. ^^James^^ 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
My crititisms where fair and baalnced. By Fair and Balanced you relaly eman in support of her claims. You woudl not allow any critisism. You won't even allow TEkton's link to stand. Your sole agenda seems to be promotion of Acharya S, not in offering any vlaid informaitom abotu her outside of her sales pitch. You want to make her appear reputable, as if her book and ideas are taken seriosuly in academia. They arent. SHe's a conspiracy theorist.
As to direct quotes, thats a bit hefty. This artilce is a breif summation of Acharya S and her work, not a detialed ananlysis of the acual books in queasiton. They may get future Wikipedia articles on them. But for this aritlce it is sufficient to post a few basic facts she getswrong, so peopel get the general gist.
In the History secion, a "Critisisms" area use to exist. I did not compose this. Noentheless, it served to balance out Acharya's claism of herself. You remove critisism, not to make the article fair and ba;anced, but yo mae it biased in faovur of her.
I have sent the administrator warnings.I have shown him the Christ COnsoiracy mailign list and how you discyss the edits.
You dont weant fair or balanced, you want propoganda.
Warning
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --Ragib 03:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. ^^James^^ 03:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Does this diff ring a bell? You blanked out comments from several users. Don't blank comments. --Ragib 03:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- oh, I removed the section I had added before because geni had modified it.
- Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S&oldid=23425311 (my original post)
- to genis mods here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S&oldid=23428140
- Isn't what geni did considered vandalism? If so, I was only trying to correct it. (I have a user account now.)
- I called it vandalism. Of course, the rules are rather unclear regarding talk pages, so many people might disagree. In any case, James, I think your removal of the voting section was rather magnanimous, and a reasonable way to avoid an edit war. I must say that, although I agree with most of Geni's points, I disagree greatly with his methods, and I consider his removal of the voting section (twice!) to be extremely impolite.
By the way, regardless of whether there is a vote, I'd like to know what exactly you wanted us to vote on: the short name (initial + last name) or the full name. If the latter, then I would say don't worry about it. It's been days since any edit of the article included it, and I think the consensus on leaving it out is pretty clear.
Reply here if you want; I'll watch this page for a while.
- I called it vandalism. Of course, the rules are rather unclear regarding talk pages, so many people might disagree. In any case, James, I think your removal of the voting section was rather magnanimous, and a reasonable way to avoid an edit war. I must say that, although I agree with most of Geni's points, I disagree greatly with his methods, and I consider his removal of the voting section (twice!) to be extremely impolite.
I was going to ask for a vote on having her name at all. I realized of course that the name is available on google... still I thought I had a compelling case for its removal, but perhaps was a little overzealous in its pursuit. No biggy. Interesting culture here on wikipedia. I will learn more about it, will add more content to AS's page, and am thinking of setting up a wiki-based site of my own (as I heard that could be done.)
- It certainly can. Plenty of Wiki software is available under an open-source/free-software license. I imagine the MediaWiki software (which is what Wikipedia runs) is available under such a license. — Nowhither 18:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
3RR warning
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ragib 18:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Even when reverting vandalism? But thanks for the 3RR tip. ^^James^^ 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- You are welcome. In this case, it is an edit dispute. I've given the warning to both the parties involved. --Ragib 18:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)