User talk:SuzanneOlsson/Archive 8

Admin help
Ms Olsson, it is no use leaving random messages around the place demanding the article about yourself be speedily deleted. Only administrators can do that. Look at this page WP:RAA and you will see the line "To ask an administrator a question, seek advice, etc., place (template) on your talk page" and hopefully an admin will leave a message here and you can explain. Copy the template and paste it on this page. I will do it for you if you want me to.Smeat75 (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you could do that for me I would be most grateful. I just had trouble inserting a link on the above post.. Most grateful, friend. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Request admin assistance in speedy deleting article
adminhelp

Ms Olsson wants the article about herself,Suzanne M. Olsson, speedily deleted. She was not sure how to find this template so I put it on her user page for her.Smeat75 (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's already tagged for an AfD. That AfD will conclude in about seven days.  Please voice your concerns there. Thank you.  Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm done.
Well, I'm not going to bother responding to much of the ridiculous rant you posted at WP:BLPN, which included a number of personal attacks, except to note that I'm one of the few people who has been willing to discuss these matters with you and assume good faith from start to finish. I was the only person who advocated for a negotiated resolution to the original topic ban proposal and the only person who (originally) opposed the topic ban extension and offered extensive reasons for that view.

I take particular issue with your suggestion that I "lied" in your BLP when in reality I simply restated something that had been stated in a reliable source. That the source might have quoted someone you claim is a liar does not make the source unreliable. Nor does my citing said source make me a liar, especially given you have outright refused to offer a reliable source to counter the multiple sources in which you, too, are quoted. Instead, you continue to suggest that we should all simply take your word that certain things happened or didn't happen when multiple reliable sources suggest otherwise. I've wasted enough of my time trying to plead leniency on your behalf - your editing career here is beyond saving and I'm done. Stalwart 111  04:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing. — raeky  t  04:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you ranting about now Ricky? I thought that issue was over with yesterday. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleting comments, I don't think you'll be warned another time. — raeky  t  04:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh I think I see what's happening...I was writing a reply there when an odd popup appeared..Sometimes when I try to  'save'- if someone else was posting at the same time, sometimes my edits would not go throu. I have to resubmit them. It's been a real hassle trying to respond..I nver know if it will appear or not..I am not deleting anyone anything deliberately..but I wonder if this happen when I get those editing conflict popups? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And you did it again, It's HIGHLY unlikely you deleteing critical comments about you is "an accedent." — raeky  t  04:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope. can honestly say I am not deleting anything.....SuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You denying it doesn't change the fact your doing it. — raeky  t  04:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I repeat. I am not deleting anything...but something seems to be over riding some posts especially if two of us are submitting at the same time. When the saved button is hit, that seems to create the appearance that either one or other of us is butted out... It is not deliberate. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I presume you mean WP:EDC? Do you not read all the text above when you get one telling you what to do and what happened? — raeky  t  04:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. I think that's the one....actually, I dont think I have ever read it before.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Suzanne M. Olsson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suzanne M. Olsson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Suzanne M. Olsson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — raeky  t  04:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying the biography
Hi Suzanne. My apologies for raising this - I suspect that you are sick of having to address this on Wikipedia, and that's a view I can certainly sympathise with. But I'm not sure if the biography about you will end up being deleted or not. It might be, and hopefully your wishes will be respected in this, but in case it isn't I wanted to try and correct the problem you identified in the article. Accordingly, I had a look through what I could of "Jesus in Kashmir, The Lost Tomb", and based on what you have said on the noticeboard and what I read in the book, I've added:


 * However, she no longer believes that this is the case, as she determined that Mary Magdalene was not the wife of Jesus, and was not the "founder of the bloodline of the Holy Grain in Britain or France".

Is that heading in the correct direction? I may have misunderstood things, but I'm hoping that this is at least a little closer, and I'd like to have that cleaned up in case it isn't deleted.

My apologies once more for raising this - if it is a problem I'll happily step back and hope that the article is deleted, but if it isn't I'd like to see it better represent your views. - Bilby (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Bilby, Thak you. Yes, that is correct. It clearly states in my book that neither the European nor the Kashmiri bloodlines could be proven of me, nor of anyone else.  I carefully explained in previous Wiki posts that it seemed expedient at the time to shout about bloodlines. It was a last ditch desperate measure made under a lot of duress.  So many sites were under threat from fundamentalism. We were under personal attacks and threats to our safety in spite of the Chief Minister giving his approval to the Project. It would have made some Kashmris very rich and famous! Kashmiris were all in favor of this.  It was a desperate attempt to save just one old tomb, and to some degree it did work. The tomb is still there, although badly desecrated.  Thank you for your help. I feel like you've made a valuable breakthrough in helping Wiki editors get their facts right.. 66.177.27.120 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that helps a bit. I am sorry you ran into such a mess - I've been here long enough to understand that the policies you ran into are very important, as is following them, but occasionally they create problems of their own. Wikipedia is reliant on reliable sources to avoid making blatantly incorrect claims, but if the reliable sources are wrong, or if a person's views have changed but have not been reported in the same way, the policies intended to protect people can end up doing the opposite.
 * If the article is kept I'll do what I can to help make sure the article remains fair. - Bilby (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What saddened me about the Bio article is how just one disparaging news article was used as the lead to describe me. There is no mention of all the years of research that went into the book- New insights into the crucifixion, into the foundatiions of Islam and the situation with world terrorism and fundamentalism today...and the DNA Project, which I feel will be my most valuable contribution-that we can and should rescure at least the DNA from the remaining Biblical tombs. That has been my focus all these years. The events in Kashmir and coming up against that particular hostile "caretaker" - this was just a small part of my life and my research. Yet it was made center stage for 'sensationalism'-  not fair and balanced reporting..66.177.27.120 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a problem with Wikipedia's focus on sourcing. People can balance it out if there are a lot of sources, so that one negative source doesn't become the focus of the article, but where there are only a small number of sources available the article can become overly focused on the words of just one or two people. Creating the situation you found, where years of solid and worthwhile work get less focus than a sensationalist event. That said, it is a side effect of a much needed focus on sources. I'm sorry that you got caught up in this. Generally, over time as more sources are found, this can become more balanced, and we can reduce the focus be expanding other areas. If the article is kept I'll try and do that, so we'll see how things work out. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bilby. It seems all the things I thought were important and prided myself on in my life, dont mean a thing here at Wiki. Thank you very much for your kind words of understanding.66.177.27.120 (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the things you thought were important are very important here. What you've achieved with your research is impressive, and I was very impressed by your willingness to question the original claims about the bloodline, and to reach and accept the conclusion you did. I teach research students, so you can understand how much I wish they would be as willing to question and investigate. The problem we face here is not one of importance, but one of verification - we want to protect people who are being written about from made up and false claims, so the idea of being able to verify claims written into articles is essential. But it is frustrating that the media tends to make the wrong things easily verifiable - if the Times of India had focused more on your work, and less on the opinions of the caretaker, we'd have a much easier time getting the balance right here. But I think, if it is kept, that we can do much better, and I hope we will. - Bilby (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban
I looked at the Roza Bal page just now. it still contains no information about the relics found at Roza bal tomb. Those relics represent valuable clues to the identity of the man buried there. It makes no sense to write about the Roza bal tomb without including information about those relics. When I argued in favor of including them, I got ridiculed, harassed and this led to the current ban on me. This is exactly what happened to the scholar who was banned under very similar circumstances here. My research book was also banned here on the grounds that it is self-published, thus worthless. This is not often a problem on other wiki pages. You kind of get the feeling the articles aren't well balanced when a fictional murder mystery thriller is included as a reference on a purportedly serious scholarly Wiki page about a tomb (Roza Bal) associated with religious holy figures. I was banned from ALL of Wiki for raising these issues. I realize now that this experience is not unique to me- and extends to scholars in general- anyone who dares to argue with certain 'editors; who are single-mindely fixed in their ways.

To understand the true history of Roza bal tomb, I encourage you to read "Jesus in Kashmir The Lost Tomb". It includes a wealth of the newest research and first-hand accounts. My book includes a careful historical examination of the relics in the tomb. Why would Muslims be buried in a tomb where crosses once appeared carved in stone? That doesn't make sense, but sadly you wont learn more from the Wiki pages. You will have to read the book. Some of you I remember from years before are still here, and still doing excellent work. Thank You.

66.177.27.120 (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC) SuzanneOlsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As a result of this ANI discussion, your topic ban is extended to include all pages on Wikipedia, with the exception of User talk:SuzanneOlsson. You are, however, still allowed to make comments regarding your biography on Talk:Suzanne M. Olsson and on WP:BLPN. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, alvio. Now please delete the Bio page. Thank Yiu SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For reference, the above discussion was archived to User_talk:Salvio_giuliano/Archive_62. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet investigation
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/SuzanneOlsson. Thank you. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Connected contributor - a solution?
Hi User:SuzanneOlsson, if you or any of your family want to request edits to the page Suzanne Olsson, then each of you can declare that you have a WP:COI to the page concerned, and we can place a on the talk page with a link to your (plural) declarations. You can then suggest edits to the page, which would be actioned by non-involved editors, using a (also be placed on the talk page of the article). If this solution is amenable to you, then please declare who you are on your user page (not your talk page), respond below, and then the talk page of the wikipedia article that is associated with you can be updated accordingly. Please can I remind you to sign any posts with four tildas. Thank you. Luther Blissetts (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)