User talk:SuzanneOlsson

ping
hey, are you still around? wondering if you could just share your overall experience with History2007, now known as User:VanishedUserABC.

thanks. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

reply to Ping
I'm still alive, and occasionally on the Internet..not sure what you are asking me. My experiences with History 2007 were "mixed"..I thought he was a great editor at times, but his biases came through, and this upset me. The problem has always been difficult for Wiki editors to sort out. If they have any religious beliefs at all, then there are bound to be conflicts. They will either accuse me of "fringe" ideas, outright quackery, et cetera. The fact that I am self-published renders me and my research efforts as inconsequential, of no merit because a mainstream publisher has not endorsed me.. History 2007 was quick to point this out, and I was deeply dismayed by him. I know that he left Wiki and returned under a new name. I wish him well. Hope this answer suffices for you. Best regards, SueUser:SuzanneOlsson

Dear Luther
Thank you for being breadth of fresh air seeking real solutions. I am most grateful. Yes, I would like to repost the article that Brainydad contributed and ask that it replace the existing article. The existing article is frought with errors and religious biases. For example, there is a quote from a long-dead Christian monk in India that reflects a biased Christian view, one not shared by millions of Hindus and Muslims- but inserted because it was intended to denigrate my research as "quackery". The views of Hindus and Muslims -especially Ahmaddi Muslims, are not given any consideration. Thus these Wiki editors lose their "impartiality" when allowing this. In another example of unfairness, the article begins with reference to Ahmaddi Muslims (who, by extension, are also accused of quackery and fakery and 'pseudo science). The Ahmaddis were NOT the first to publish the claims about the Roza Bal tomb in 1902, as stated in the opening paragraph. This is another blatant and predjudicial POV. In my book, I clearly listed all the facts, all the artifacts found in the tomb, everything I could to establish why so many people people believe this could be the tomb of Jesus. This is traced back to within a century of Jesus' death. By leaving these facts out, the article is grossly inaccurate and missleading. Yet attempts to correct this are always blocked, and I am always "in the wrong" because this link or that edit somehow "failed" Wikipedia.

So here below I will copy and paste the article that I would approve and want to see on Wikipedia. I am asking all editors to check out the links and facts when deciding. I am the author. I did the hard on the ground research. Thus I have a COI. But I also have a passion for the truth. I also am old and tired and dont have a lot of time left to get this right.What we do will remain long after I'm gone. My great grandchildren will probably be reading this some day. I just ask that it be fair, truthful, and unbiased. Thank you.Suzanne Olsson (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanne Olsson (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)