Talk:Acharya S/Archive 5

message: I emailed the American School for Classical Studies in Athens http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/ to verify "Acharya's" claimed affilation with them.  The response was "we do not know who she is and we disassociate ourselves from her." Anyone who wants to can do as I did and ask the same question by email or phone to them. 206.106.76.175 02:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not mentioned recently in the article. Charles Matthews 10:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious qualifications

message: With a dozen reverts within 24 hours to this page, I should like to remind all parties that
*engaging on this talk page is the only way of proceeding that is likely to bear fruit; and
*the three-revert rule, 3RR, will be enforced, and is not to be 'gamed' or got round - it represents a principle of policy.
Charles Matthews 09:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: [Personalia here removed Charles Matthews]
:And there you have it... this is a perfect example why this article will never have a moments peace. Anyone who can decipher this can see how transparant its intentions are. The fact that administrative warnings have to be issued says reams about the conflict of it. Remove this article! Protect it from the righteous. It's bait to the followers of ignore all and plod ahead with the same old line over and over and over. The only right thing to do is remove it from them.  12/18/05  -el Lobo
::I have applied a 48 hour block to the IP number of the posting - given that the warning further up the page has been disregarded. Charles Matthews 12:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: mE AGAIN

message: If the above was to me, I apologise. The block didnt take hold,a nd I reverted the aritlce.
Ill leave for two days. I will read the tlak page. Unless the block was aiemd at El Lobo.
Was a bit Ambiguous.GIventhat my entire entry was deleted.
Zarove.
67.213.53.49 18:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your IP number appears to be dynamic. Please take to heart the idea that discussions on this page must take a different form in future, and respect the idea that this page is for debate on the page content only. Charles Matthews 18:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You put back the AfD notice. It also looks to me as if you may have infringed the 3RR. It would be a good idea if you kept away from this article for a couple of days. Charles Matthews 18:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CHarles Mathews block

message: I beeliv my two days are up. If not, I apologise but will confine myself to here till tomorrow.
This hasbeen my issue all along. Her supporters coem ehr eot purposely write a POV artivcle, and accuse anyone who dares chang eit, or who wants to include statements nto authorised and approvved by Acharya out.
Charles Mathew banned me base don eprsonal attacks. But they make mroe than I.
ITs fialry obviosu that unless the article unqueastioningly accepts Acharya's claims, then its Biased int he eys of her supporters, andhtis is the real root of the edit war.
Simply put, James,. El Lobo, and the rest are here to support Acharya, and will acuse others of beiogn ehre to smear her if the aritcle doesnt reflect a spacific view. THey rmeove Critism of her for htis end, in an attmeot to prevent peopel form seeing both sides of the issue. They, if the critism cannot be removed, attmeot to minimalise it with terms such as "Chrisyain fundamentlaists say" or "Apologsyst say" r "Peopel dotn liek it as it contradicts the Bible". This hwile on the tlak page launchign acucsaitons agaisnt editors along the same ines.
If we include that Acharya is in faovur of LEgilisaiton of Entheogens, its rmoved. Sh even removed the essay form her own websote, as it mad her look bad. But it still eixsts online. They dotn want you to kow she supports this. They also rmeove the life seciton, which is woefully underdevloped. It doesnt support her agenda to have her lif discussed.
THey then claim she is an "Historian, Linguis, Religiosu Schoalr, and Archeologist" in the aritlce. Any attmeopt to remove this is shot down. ANy attmet to clarify that she is only self proffessed and has no degree in this is shot down.
THey defend on the tlak page this claim by aying her bopoks prve sheis htis. Btu write itn h aritlce " SHe is a Hisotiran, rleigiosu shcolar, and lingusit base don her writting two books" and they edit this. Its apparnet they want her to look lioek an accredited scholar in the aritlce, as they are aware fewwill readthe tlak page.
And, shes nto a Hisotruan either. HEr BLA is in Classics, not Hisotry. She now can teach clsssics in High school. Maybe collage.
Any attmept at formulatign a fair and baa;nced artilce is undercut because her supporters exist here to blatantly scew the aritlce in ehr faovur, andminimalise or rmeove critism.
Relevant informaiton wll eb removed, and her support will simply word everythign to read as if shes a wonderfull and well repsected scholar. Not just a crank conspiracy writter.
And I do nto sya htis an an evil fundamentalist Chrisytain coverly here to destroy her. As I said, I am an evoltionist. I am mainly on WIkipedia for Dinosaurs. I liek nutcases. THis is my artilce. I want ot balanced, not in the hands of her fanatical supporters.
And the reaosn I dotn have a log in is because I do. I am Zarove. I just cant stay logged in.
And I hope Charles MAthew doesnt ban me again, I am not usign Ad Homhere, I am simply pointign outthe pattern her Disiples ar eusing.
67.213.47.35 18:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to make it clear that editing the article is not off-limits to Zarove (or anyone else like-minded). But that personal attacks are not only contrary to policy, they have tended to fill up this discussion with stuff that does not progress the article. No one is going to underestimate the difficulty of getting some sort of consensus version — least of all me. But what we do here is to aim for exactly that, by documenting the controversial and selecting the 'encyclopedic' from it. When it comes to the flaming on this page, 10 kilobytes seems to evaporate, in stuff no one wants to read. So please keep it concise, clear and on-topic. The only topic here is the article content. Charles Matthews 19:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Me again