User talk:Aspening
This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aspening. |
![]() | I have an alternative account named Aspening-alt, used for editing on public networks and computers. |
![]() | Please remember to assume good faith and refrain from making personal attacks. |
![]() | I am a volunteer editor. |
This is Aspening's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days ![]() |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
My edit
Here's a source. I'm also a member. We are very much not greek. https://dka.org/about-us/current-chapters/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.73.113 (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please have a look at our conflict of interest policy, especially the section about COI editing -Aspening (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your editing of my "editing":))
Regarding your editing of my "editing":)) you could let it stay for one day.I know that Wikipedia is apolitical (and it should be), but that person did a damnable gesture towards my nation,so I did a lot less damnable gesture towards her. Have sir a nicer day then I have today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.248.242 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- So what? There's no excuse for vandalizing Wikipedia. Aspening (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Changes to the New Acropolis Page
Hi Aspening.
I apologize for some of the changes made to the New Acropolis page.
Based on personal experience and experiences from close friends with the organization (who have on average been with the organization for 7+ years), I was attempting to remove false and baseless claims regarding the nature of the organization.
The citations, if you look at them in the page regarding the line about it being an organization accused of deception and secrecy are opinion based blogs rather than factual.
As someone who attends the New Acropolis Atlanta chapter, we have noticed that multiple individuals come to the organization and then shy away due to the Wikipedia page making claims that the organization has cult-like connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epictetusfanforever (talk • contribs) 18:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
These are conspiracy theory driven blogs that the user is citing that are opinion based.
Here are some of the citations that the user uses to make the claims about the organization being "secret" and full of deception for your reference: http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/txt/liv-gb.htm http://victimasectas.com/NuevaAcropolis/NuevaAcropolis.html http://thesecretrealtruth.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post_4270.html
Regarding the citation about the French Commission on Cults...the user who put the sentence there has not used any citation or evidence indicating that the organization was subject to the council. This is the citation the user uses: http://www.lepoint.fr/actualites-societe/2007-01-17/la-fin-des-listes-noires/920/0/19641 If you look, the citation in fact is just about the fact that the French Commission on Cults was dissolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epictetusfanforever (talk • contribs) 18:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Epictetusfanforever: Please review WP:COI - if you are affiliated with the organization please don't make controversial edits to its article. I'll have another look at it but please be aware of Wikipedia policy --Aspening (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Aspening: Not affiliated with the organization. I've just gone to 2 classes that they offer. Thanks.
- @Epictetusfanforever: Any sort of connection to the organization can be considered a COI - at the very least be careful to stay neutral. Aspening (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this article is rascist
Dear Aspening
Actually the original person who wrote this article is clearly a racist. The original article written here leads to stereo-typing and hatred. The article told only about one woman who dressed this way that abused her children. The wrticle also only spread lies that were invented about the women who dress this way. If a person wishes to study a subject, in this case a group of people, who should he ask? People who assume things based on rumors and misunderstandings? O should he ask one of that group? For example, imagine if someone would now go up against the Indians and claim all sorts of false things about the women, the traditional, Sari, etc. Do you understand? I myself dress in a Redid and therefore know and can tell you that the original writer has no idea what he is talking about. It is NOT called a frumka. It is called a Redid according to the Jewish book Code of Law - the Shulchan Aruch. It is also a fact that the Jerusalem courts and Rabbis have stated that they know that this is not a cult and that most of the women who dress this way do not abuse their children! Aspening, this article must be edited or removed. A separate article about the woman Bruria Keren can remain but not to stereotype against all of these women! Please let me know ASAP what you will do so I will not have to take legal and public action against Wikipedia for writing such discriminating articles.
94.159.142.118 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please review Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, since you have stated you are the subject of the article. I'm going to have another look --Aspening (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Summer edit was fully explained.
Donna Summer edit fully explained. I never made the quotes attributed to me. And the citation cannot be retrieved any longer. Winkepedia suggested that the fabricated quotes be deleted. Would you please reverse my edit. Or, alternatively, I can do it myself if you prefer. There was no mistake here. Falsified quotes should never be cited in any article.
Thank you so much.