User talk:Annette Gerardi

SCA
Hi. I've reverted your removal of information in the Society for Creative Anachronism article. It is well sourced to reliable sources, and it is not inappropriate for the article--the lawsuit was notable, it had a profound effect on the Society, and it hit major news sources. I'm not sure why you thought it was 'inappropriate,' but in any case I have restored the information you removed. If you disagree with the removal, please go to Talk:Society for Creative Anachronism and discuss it there--please click here for why the next step is to discuss. Sebthepleb (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that it is factually correct, I do not agree that it belongs under the history section of the SIA. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the history of the society. Therefore I erased it because it has nothing to do with the society's history history. If you would like to keep it there why don't you put it in another more appropriate location. Annette Gerardi (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Having it under the history section, when it is the 3rd paragraph of information about the society, seems a little, well, stupid. It's going to hurt recruitment and therefore not help the society at all. Annette Gerardi (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It was a major development in the history of the society, and therefore belongs in the history section. As for hurting recruitment, that is neither here nor there--the article isn't a PR piece for the SCA, it is a neutral recitation of facts. (I am a SCAdian, lest you start saying I don't know what I'm talking about). Again, if you wish to discuss the removal, please go to Talk:Society for Creative Anachronism and make your case there. Sebthepleb (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)