^^James^^

Revision as of 23:49, 21 September 2005

Latest revision as of 05:46, 14 December 2024

(77 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{not around|3=April 2013}}

==tEKTONICS==

[[/archive1]]

[[User:^^James^^|^^James^^]] 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

''Re: "Tekton doesnt mean 'Fremason'... I checked."

== Archive page ==

You checked? Are you sure? Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions, based on such scant research. Get to know your subject a little deeper before forming set opinions. A little rigour and extra care never hurts. I've fact-checked this in the past, but did so again today. Here's what I came up with:

I have moved your talk archive out of the main namespace and deleted the redirect at [[^^James^^/archive1]]. If you have questions about that, please ask on my talk page. Happy editing, [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma|(討論)]] 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"the Modern Greek word for mason, or free mason, is Tektonas. And the word for "Masonic" is tektonikos (Reference: "Oxford Greek Mini-dictionary"; Watts, Niki; Oxford University Press, 1997)"''

:Ooops! Thanks. [[User:^^James^^|^^James^^]] 21:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

==3RR block==

I have blocked you for a fourth revert at [[Acharya S]]. There is no 'entitlement' to a fourth revert, even if the 24 hours are up. You have been engaged in sterile edit warring at this article long enough. Bear in mind that policies here are interpreted in the spirit, not just the letter. Your block is for 24 hours.

[[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 21:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It means Masonas in Builder. Not Mason asin "Freemason."

:AJA continually reverts with stated intention ''not'' to talk it over, and with continued uncivility directed at myself and others. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A.J.A.&diff=prev&oldid=52509201] Why you "appreciate" such efforts is beyond me. Considering his refusal to discuss on the talk page, I think your strict interpretation of policy in this instance is a bit much. [[User:^^James^^|^^James^^]] 23:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked an online Greek Lexicon. It is not rlelay the same as Freemasonry.

::I have taken this up on Charles Matthews talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charles_Matthews#Block_of_.5E.5EJames.5E.5E] but have had no luck. I should warn you against pursuing this yourself after the block as I have never seen a case like this where the user with a problem actually came off well. At worst you will get blocked again for trouble making and at best you will be told not to waste everyone's time. Depressing but true.

Tekton only means builder. Its nto a proof of any conspiracy theory you may adhere to. Even if it where, this is Wikipedia, not Acharya S's personal commercial. Freemasons have a right to an opinion as well. TEkton Ministires is a vlaid refutaiton of Acharya simply because they make valid points. Acharya herself is not considered a vlaid soruc eby many, even athiests, so I odn't see why you insist on harping.

::I'm also taking this up at 3rr [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule&curid=901222&diff=53495739&oldid=52210350] as A.J.A. got away with it by reverting us both with one blow - thus saving his "allowance". This is a terrible situation and I'm appauled by all of this. However I'm also getting increasing disillusioned with the ability of the admins to police themselves. Charles Matthews is on the arbcom so you will win no friends by fighting this and I'm sure I won't do too well by posting this.

::If you wish to try your luck you can post <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> on your talk page and another admin will look at the block. Since this has not been logged at [[WP:AN/3RR]] as it should have been no one else has had a chance to comment (I'm just watching the Acharya page as I've croosed swords with A.J.A. before and saw a message about your block). Be warned though - this may result in the block being lengthened. [[User:SOPHIA| <span style="color:purple;">'''Sophia'''</span>]] 13:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

THis aside, the term "Tekton" even f taken to mean Mason relaly isnt relevant here.

:::Hey Sophia, thanks for your comments. My concern about the block is the risk of being tarred a 'problem user' over time due to a rather strict and selective application of policy. I won't fight this because it is technically a legal block. Still, considering that AJA refuses to discuss on the talk page while reverting a number of peoples work, I do think blocking me in this instance is questionable. OTOH, the [[Acharya S]] edit war has been going on for many months, and Charles has applied the 3RR strictly against others in the past, so I don't feel so bad. [[User:^^James^^|^^James^^]] 19:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen all this and am appalled. No wonder A.J.A. behaves as he does - his bad behaviour is being ignored and the way cleared for him. Charles Matthews obviously doesn't understand that in wikipedia all editors are equal so if what he feels is an attack against him justifies a ban then so should calling other editors "vandals". He also doesn't seem to have got the hang of the idea that if you are involved you should not issue the ban yourself unless the article space is in danger which it clearly is not in this case. I will take it up with him directly at the risk of being accused of showing "bad faith". [[User:SOPHIA| <span style="color:purple;">'''Sophia'''</span>]] 18:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

:He's actually [[User:skullnboner]] and there is a history with him at the Acharya page I think. I've asked Charles Matthews to log this one on [[WP:ANI]] as he should have done with your block too so I'm waiting for him to do that so that this discussion can take place in public. If he fails to log it then I will so I'll let you know when and where to comment if you wish to. Be warned as I don't expect this to go too well. [[User:SOPHIA| <span style="color:purple;">'''Sophia'''</span>]] 18:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

== Revert wars ==

I am leaving the same message for you and for A.J.A.

Looking at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acharya_S&curid=1752829&action=history article's history], in recent weeks you two have engaged in the most reversions by far. If ''either'' of you revert the article [[Acharya S]] again, I will suspend your editing privileges for a short period of time.

''Hey, by the way, did you know that the masons are rumoured to be in the religion crafting business? For example, I've read articles suggesting that prominent freemasons were involved in the creation of the Jehovas Witnesses and the Mormons. Interesting, no?''

I'm tired of watching the same slow motion edit war go back and forth. Poor editing practices by one person do not justify them by another. I will not be editing the article further myself. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 16:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: There seems to be some confusion&mdash;to clarify, if a revert occurs, I would ''only'' block the party that reverts the article. It was drawn to my attention that the wording of my statement was unclear. I don't want either of you to mistakenly believe that I would block ''both'' of you in the event that only of you reverts. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 22:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. We are discussing your useless editign of Acharya S's article, not where religiosn came form.

:Please don't revert articles without comment in the edit summary. Using just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acharya_S&curid=1752829&diff=56934986&oldid=56934481 "RV"] leaves people wondering what's been reverted, and why. Thanks for discussing the issue on the talk page, though. Cheers. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 04:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

::Sure, no prob. [[User:^^James^^|^^James^^]] 08:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

== antiscience ==

A clarification about my changes to [[antiscience]]: the changes are negotiable, but [[WP:NPOV]] is not. In other words, the outcome of the negotiation must continue to conform to [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Alienus|<span style="color:darkcyan;">Al</span>]] 20:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

''As to your claims about ASCSA, if you can post information to suggest that Acharya S is a lier, then be my guest.''

Ah! I get it. [[User:^^James^^|^^James^^]] 20:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

==[[User:Alienus|Al]]==

I have posted an outside view as I can't believe they consider the final straw leading to Arbcom calling someone an "edit warrior". If Al gets banned I'm going too as this place really is beginning to resemble the [[Stanford Prison Experiment]]. To be quite honest it takes people like Al to rock the cozy boat a little, stretch the bounds of understanding of some limited editors and let people like me make what is then seen as reasonable edits that bring the article closer to NPOV. With Al gone I'll be faced with either wasting my time or becoming more bolshy myself which does not sit very well with my British/avoid conflict at all costs mentality. [[User:SOPHIA| <span style="color:purple;">'''Sophia'''</span>]] 19:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me spell the logic out again, slowly.

:You are spot on which is why you know it's ultimately pointless. Shifting the ground on entrenched editors with strong POV's is as you say a dirty job and I dislike conflict and don't see why I should do it for a hobby. Al steps up to the mark in a way I admire (although in the past his methods sometimes left a lot to be desired) and don't have the stomach to emulate. I'd rather be gone than effectively sign my name to heavily partisan articles. [[User:SOPHIA| <span style="color:purple;">'''Sophia'''</span>]] 21:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

== Re: [[G33]] ==

You and she and others make the claim he is part of the American Shcool of GReek Studies. This is a posiitve. I cannot prove a negative.

Thanks, I'm not going to get invloved in it since it seems like nothing more than a stupid wheel war. Thanks for bringing AN:I to my attention though. --[[User:Pilotguy|<span style="color:#000000;">'''Pilotguy'''</span>]]^{'''('''[[User_talk:Pilotguy|<b style="color:#0000FF;">''roger that''</b>]]''')'''} 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus, those advancign the claimmust make the evidence knwon. As it stands nw, there is no real evidence. The ASOGS has no reord of her. I stated int he aritlce that the claim could not be substantiated. I origionally tried to edit the claim out, completley. Now I have to make due with "it is not substantated." As I cannot fidn any evidence that she is in the ASOGS, aside form her own self proffessed membership and evidence that she recievs a newsletter I coudl recieve if I asked for one, as a Non-Member, this doesnt bode well.

* Erich Fromm

^^James^^, I borrowed the Erich Fromm quote from your page, hope you don't mind.--[[User:Tomtom9041|Tomtom9041]] 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Burden of proof is on you to show that she is,in fact, a member of the Society. If you cannot, then what can I say other than " this claim is not substantiated." SHiftign 100% of the repsoincobility tome, especiially when I am not the claimant, is absurd.

==End of drama ==

Sorry for my behavior, I should have waited before I responded.

I really have no ill will against Acharya S. or her followers.

As far as placing a link to further information, my website is not a 'personal' website or blog. As an item clearly labeled as commentary, it does not belong on her wikipedia entry. However, I would find it appropriate to include it on James Churchward's page, right next to the entry that says he influenced her.[[User:Jchurchward|Jchurchward]] ([[User talk:Jchurchward|talk]]) 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

==Rfa thanks==

Thanks for supporting my recent [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bigtimepeace|request for adminship]] which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--[[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] <small>| [[User_talk:Bigtimepeace|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Bigtimepeace|contribs]]</small> 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

== Acharya S ==

Hey, cool, thanks for pointing that out. -- [[User:Gekritzl|Geĸrίtz]] ([[User talk:Gekritzl|talk]]) 22:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[Acharya S]] ==

''I'm all ears. Personally, I could care less about guarantees. I don't take things on 'faith', and I don't take things on 'trust'.''

[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|left|48px|]]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|deletion]]. The nominated article is [[Acharya S]]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also [[Wikipedia:Notability]] and "[[WP:NOT|What Wikipedia is not]]").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (3rd nomination)]]. Please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the [[WP:AfD|articles for deletion]] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a [[WP:BOT|bot]]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --[[User:Erwin85Bot|Erwin85Bot]] ([[User talk:Erwin85Bot|talk]]) 01:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes tyou do. You have faith in and trust whatever Acharya says. Otherwise you woudl understand why I dont beelive that shes part of the ASOGS since I lack any and every evidence linkign her to this.

== Christ Myth ==

You took that, alone, on faith. I also take it you trusted her researhc implicitely.

Hi you were active on the Christ Myth page during the month of december. It would be helpful to everyone if you indicated how you felt the conversation went in December [[Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Dec_5th_poll]]. Thanks in advance [[User:jbolden1517|jbolden1517]][[User talk:jbolden1517|<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk</sup>]] 11:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

==Hello==

I would say the "fun" is worse than ever. It is so hostile there - Eugeneacurry has basically said that he will start dispute resolution against me - and I've only been back 3 days! Never been threatened with that one before. You should look at the course he links to as justification for the book he wants to use as a source. The joke is it is exploring the evidence for a historical jesus!!! Own goal or what ;-) My biggest problem is time as I'm full on at the moment so hopefully we will get this sorted promptly.[[User:SOPHIA| <span style="color:purple;">'''Sophia'''♫</span>]] 09:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:Congrats on the babies - you've been pretty busy these last few years! Mine are all growing up (20,17,14!!) but I' working full time and doing voluntary work as well so I have virtually no time for wiki these days. It's a bit scary how ferocious it has become and certain editors seem to know their way round the rules very well. I don't see how them not moving on their points is anymore disruptive than me repeating my stance. It will be interesting to see if the wheels of wiki are able to deal with vested interests well these days - this holocaust stuff looks like revenge for the creationists being labeled as denialists. Looking on the web the moon hoax/skin head stuff is very new (last decade) and does look like a "wedge strategy" approach as popular interest in the lack of documentary support has grown. The growth of more scientific historical techniques will be interesting as the current approach seems to state opinions/theories as "fact" with no admission of uncertainties. Hope the babes are well and I will try to add a moderate voice to the debate. [[User:SOPHIA| <span style="color:purple;">'''Sophia '''♫</span>]] 18:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

== CMT ==

'' I require solid evidence and an intelligent argument.''

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning ''Christ myth theory'' has been filed with the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee|Mediation Committee]] (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory]] and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee]]; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy]]; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at [[Wikipedia:Resolving disputes]].

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Active Mediators|active mediator]] of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list ([[User:Mediation Committee|click here]] for details).

OK, here goes.

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, [[User:Eugeneacurry|Eugene]] ([[User talk:Eugeneacurry|talk]])

I see no evidence that she is in the ASOGS, and she is not mentioend on the rosters of members.

I see no verificaiton for her claim. Thus her clim is unsubstantated.

==Request for mediation accepted==

{| class="messagebox" style="width:90%"

|-

|[[Image:Exquisite-folder5.png|75px]]

|A [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation|Request for Mediation]] to which you were are a party has been [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to accepted cases#Post-acceptance|accepted]].<br>You can find more information on the case subpage, [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory]].</center><br>

::''For the Mediation Committee,'' '''[[User:Seddon|Seddon]]''' ^{[[User talk:Seddon|talk]]} and [[User:Xavexgoem|Xavexgoem]] ([[User talk:Xavexgoem|talk]]) 01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

|}

<div style="text-align:center; font-size:smaller;">This message delivered by [[User:MediationBot1|MediationBot]], an automated bot account [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|operated]] by the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee|Mediation Committee]] to perform case management.<br>If you have questions about this bot, please [[Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee|contact the Mediation Committee directly]].</div>

== Talkback ==

See, how what can you do to rectify this?

{{talkback|Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Christ myth theory|ts=17:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)}}

[[User:NuclearWarfare|<b style="color:navy;">NW</b>]] ''([[User talk:NuclearWarfare|<span style="color:green;">Talk</span>]])'' 17:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

:You seem to be the only editor who has agreed to mediation that has not yet posted a statement. Could you please try to do so within the next 24 hours? Thanks. [[User:NuclearWarfare|<b style="color:navy;">NW</b>]] ''([[User talk:NuclearWarfare|<span style="color:green;">Talk</span>]])'' 18:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Christ myth theory]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

''And even then I'm open to new information. Otherwise, people would be able to manipulate me just by telling me lies.''

* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration]];

* [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide]].

Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->

== correction ==

Hi James, yes I meant the exact opposite, she is only notable and well known by her pseudonym . Listen why not ask rhe question and start a straw poll to see where general opinion is? [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 11:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Kinda liek Acharya, no?

==[[Christ myth theory|CMT]]==

Stirling effort, ^^James^^. I'm distracted at the moment. [[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthony]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 20:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

==Dispute resolution survey==

{| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5"

| [[File:Peace dove.svg|right|70px]]

''Also, I need some clarification: please explain (with examples) as to what you mean when you say 'primary sources'.''

<big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big>

As in, sources that ar primary, or first. IE, when discussing the story of Krishna, it is best to go tot he Vida's. Not "The Worlds 16 Crucified Saviours." I knwo Acharya sauys she didnt rley on Graves, btu last year she defended her use of Graves. And indeed, her writtigns note him often in th edition of "The CHirst Conpsiracy" that I wopwn. Shoudl I count the number of references?

Firts Century soruces actually wrtten in the firts century are prmary. Firts century soruces written int he 19th century are clealry not.

''And feel free to "list as many errors as you like, although I think you should focus on her major tenets, as wikipedia probably is not the place to get bogged down in minor details.''

I tried that. Thats why I focused on her current claim that Buddha and Krishna share the same life sotry as CHirst. Thy dont. Any reader of Wikipedia will learn swiflty the differences between Buddha and Krishna, much less either of them and CHrist.

Read the Hisotry section.

''And make sure that the 'errors' are based on what she actually wrote, not what some religious website claims she wrote. You do have access to her books, correct?"''

I own her book "The Christ Conspiracy." I read it. I knwo whats in it.I know its fukll of hot air. What moe can I say?

== Tektonas ==

Re: "Tekton doesnt mean 'Fremason'... I checked."

You checked? Are you sure? Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions, based on such scant research. Get to know your subject a little deeper before forming set opinions. A little rigour and extra care never hurts. I've fact-checked this in the past, but did so again today. Here's what I came up with:

"the Modern Greek word for mason, or free mason, is Tektonas. And the word for "Masonic" is tektonikos (Reference: "Oxford Greek Mini-dictionary"; Watts, Niki; Oxford University Press, 1997)"

Hey, by the way, did you know that the masons are rumoured to be in the religion crafting business? For example, I've read articles suggesting that prominent freemasons were involved in the creation of the Jehovas Witnesses and the Mormons. Interesting, no?

As to your claims about ASCSA, if you can post information to suggest that Acharya S is a lier, then be my guest. I'm all ears. Personally, I could care less about guarantees. I don't take things on 'faith', and I don't take things on 'trust'. I require solid evidence and an intelligent argument. And even then I'm open to new information. Otherwise, people would be able to manipulate me just by telling me lies.

Also, I need some clarification: please explain (with examples) as to what you mean when you say 'primary sources'.

And feel free to "list as many errors as you like, although I think you should focus on her major tenets, as wikipedia probably is not the place to get bogged down in minor details. And make sure that the 'errors' are based on what she actually wrote, not what some religious website claims she wrote. You do have access to her books, correct?"

[[User:^^James^^|^^James^^]] 23:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

==Tekton and other neusances==

I don't care what Tekton means in Greek. It was presented ot show another poitn fo veiw besides Acharya's. Robert Price's peice stands because he's a fellow Mytheisst.So even if Acharya is Discredited peopel still beleive what she say's,basiclaly.

I know you on the mailign list have Tekton with a passion, just as much as you hate actual fair and baalnced articles on wikipedia. You rpefer the glowong "Isn't Acharya so wonderful" Variety.That's not fair and balanced.Her critics need an equel voice to her.

Again, I cna post a link to ASOGS and you can browse the list, opnline, of Alumni and mmbers past and preasent. I gurentee you that Dorothy Murdock isnt one of them.

But what you rlelay want is a document hat says "She is nto a mebmber." Thats not posisble, a sporving a negative is seldom acheivable. Can you prove that she's a member, other than form her own soruces?

Show me evidence she is,in fact, a member. Any evidence.So far I have none. I'd gladly retract my claim that she's not if I had evidence. That's wat makes me different form you.

No, the only place you find this is on her website.

Let's not forget, the critis=ms to her book ar ealso freley available pnline. IE, herlakc of prrimary source use, her use of discredited soruces, her fallacy in word origins. I can go ona nd on lisitn lots more erros than just "The Buddha and Krishna wheren't Crucified."

Again, do you rlelay want me to go that far?

I'm not lookign to just out and out discredit Acharya. But you are looking to promote her.

This is an encyclopidia, so her critics must be allowed, as wlel as all available evidence.

Also, a small addition. Tekton doesnt mean "Fremason", it means builder, or craftsman. It cna be taken to mean Freemason, in the sence of oen who builds things, but ha no Messianic attatchment as far as the secret society goes. I checked.

----

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

:I don't consider Tecktonics to be a reputable source. I doubt anybody else would, either. If you can back up your assertions, please do. I'm all ears. Otherwise, your tossing around baseless accusations.

'''Please click [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dDBlN2RPQzljTFgySWg1bGFPZkVJcWc6MQ HERE] to participate.'''<br>

Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

:Acharya S either is a member of ASCSA or isn't. It's something that can be checked, unlike proving the existence of God. Please provide some evidence of inpropriety regarding her credentials, else you come off as attempting to smear her character. Why are you holding back on this? Because your claim is baseless and you're lying??

----

<small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated [[meta:Research:Wikipedia Dispute Resolution|research page]]. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">[[User:Steven Zhang|<span style="color:#078330;">Steven</span>]] [[User talk:Steven Zhang|<span style="color:#2875b0;">Zhang</span>]] ^{[[WP:DRP|<span style="color:#d67f0f;">DR goes to Wikimania!</span>]]}</span> 01:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)</small>

:List as many errors as you like, although I think you should focus on her major tenets, as wikipedia probably is not the place to get bogged down in minor details. And make sure that the 'errors' are based on what she actually wrote, not what some religious website claims she wrote. You do have access to her books, correct?

|}

==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?

::If you have evidence, please provide it. Wikipedia does not operate from 'trust'. The guidlines require that claims be backed up with verifiable sources. So please provide them. And it's not my job to back up your claims. Back them up yourself.

::Dr. Price made 'D. Murdock' available. Please provide verifiable documentation, as per wiki guidelines, that shows your full version of her name is correct. Otherwise your claim (regardless of it's truth) is not based on any provided evidence.

''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.

::I do allow criticism. Consider that I haven't argued against allowing Robert Prices criticism to stand. I don't consider Tekton (which means "freemason" in modern greek by the way) a reputable source. And please lets not cast vague aspersions as to my motives. I don't mind a fair and balanced assesment of AS's work or credentials. Some in academia DO take her work seriously. Academia is far too broad a term to be tossing around, as though it were some homogenous entity. It's not. Science is based on disputes and debate. That's how it grows. If nobody were offering controversial, challenging perspectives, it would become stagnant and unthinking. And 'conspiracy' simply means that people secretly cooperated to commit a crime. It happens all the time, and so is not much of a criticism. Consider the Churches efforts to cover up child abuse by its priests. That should be rightly labeled a conspriacy, IMO.

: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.

::The problem is, presenting the 'gist' of her work is one thing, but basing criticisms solely on that 'gist', which is only a general idea of what her work is about, is another. If you want to accurately criticise, you have to get into some detail about what she actually says in her work. The devil is in the details, as they say.

: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.

::See the talk page under 'Smear Tactics'. Discuss it there.

: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.

::Please, lets not get personal. I am most capable of being fair and playing by the rules. If you want to make edits, discuss and debate them first on their merits instead of going ahead and simply changing things.

==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 [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been [[Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism|vandalised]], please [[Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version|revert]] it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|edit]] the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]] for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 03:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

:I don't know what you're talking about. [[User:^^James^^|^^James^^]] 03:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

::Does [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S&diff=prev&oldid=23431648 this diff] ring a bell? You blanked out comments from several users. Don't blank comments. --[[User:Ragib|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

:::and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acharya_S&oldid=23428757

:::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.<p>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.<p>Reply here if you want; I'll watch this page for a while.<p>&mdash; [[User:Nowhither|Nowhither]] 20:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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. &mdash; [[User:Nowhither|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 [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia under the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that nobody may [[Wikipedia:revert|revert]] an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 18:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Even when reverting vandalism? But thanks for the 3RR tip. [[User:^^James^^|^^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. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 18:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)