User talk:ZAROVE

You have to back up your assertions. For example, if you want to claim that she has lied about being a member of the American School of Classical Studies, provide some evidence and documentation, else your claim should be considered baseless.

The 'Theme of Books' section is no place for criticism. Criticism must be balanced and present a fair representation of what she actually writes. Provide direct quotes to illustrate the claims she makes so that we can see for ourselves what she actually says first, then criticise her position. Otherwise it might look as though you were misrepresenting her position, then attacking your own misrepresentation. The well known straw-man fallacy. ^^James^^ 18:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Warnings
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ragib 18:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Account
Hi. Indeed, please do use your account. The most annoying things on the Archaya page are anonymous contributors offending each other. Having an account induces a measure of responsibility, so it is good you use one. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I attemot to, but often wikipeida wont let me sign in, Its a technicla error, Ithink on my end.Sorry for the hassle. I dont mean to ofend nayone, just their motives are trsansparent.

ZAROVE 03:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning
We have received a complaint about your comments in this edit, where you discuss among other things checking another person's credit history, while pretending that you're not making any threats. This kind of comment comes rather close to insinuating the commission of a possible crime against that person, such as stalking or identity theft. We cannot condone threats like this, no matter how veiled they may be. If you make any comments of that nature again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Michael Snow 05:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Farce
The omment is a farce. They simply wan tto silence me and cast it int he worst possibel light. I didnt conduct nay criminal activity. I was a reporter and got th einformaiton via public soruces. They simply c hoose to depict me in this way to make sure I am banned so they can have free reign on the Article in queastion. CHeck the Acharya S tlak page, they use any excus to get htier way.

ZAROVE 17:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Acharya S
Would you please let the dispute at Talk:Acharya S go? Fred Bauder 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Let someone else take the load. Fred Bauder 00:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have warned the other user against making personal attacks, and will block them if they continue to do so. However, I have to agree with Fred here--your time may be better spent on other parts of the encyclopedia.  Chick Bowen 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
I have requested arbitration regarding your conduct in the Acharya S matter. See Requests for arbitration. --Michael Snow 19:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Spell
Would you mind reading carefully the request for arbitration and doing a spellcheck? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your conduct
I'm quite well aware that personal attacks have been made, including against you. People have been trying to enforce the rules about that on the talk page. I can also tell that the article is a mess. But the issue here, and the reason I've taken it to arbitration, is that you keep moving into topics that threaten to invade people's privacy. You might not be an actual stalker, but the information you're talking about is stuff that could be used for stalking, identity theft, and other types of harassment. Your posting it could help somebody who really does intend to commit those crimes. As a result, it's not something we can tolerate, and if you can't steer very clear of such topics, then you shouldn't be here. --Michael Snow 07:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Again.
I can steer clear of them, but I do beleive offerign my own news article is harldya threat. Dorothy Murdock is known for her self-agrandising, as well as her rpetence.

To hear her tlak, Fundametalist CHristaisn will her dead, and her Ex-Lover is Schitzophrinic and a threat. Yet her ex lover knwos she is Acharya S and whre she lives. She wrote the book while with him.

Likewise, its ridiculosuly simply to dospitre that "The CHristain CHruch" wants her dead. Few have heard of her.

You ought to be less trustign of her word, given that she has ortchestrated the entre Edit war int he attmeot to maintian the image she presents of herself. She refuses to allow anyoen to think ill fo her, and so presents herself as a perpetual victim or hero, depending on the situaiton. This is standard bully tactic. Regardless, I shall refrain if you like, btu will post my own article on the web, if they continue to reject all soruces that afen't glowign reviews and priase for her. Th arilce needs ot be balanced, and as it is now all sites that arent in faovur of her are called useless and removed.

ZAROVE 18:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Do Over
Your article Do Over has appeared in the Dead End Pages list because it is not wikified. Please consult the Wikipedia Guide to Layout for more information on how to write a good, wikified article. I would encourage you to revisit your submissions and them. Thanks and happy editing! James084 20:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

3 revert rule warning
I know that you are quite familiar with the rule. I'm surprised to see you continue the edit war even as an arbitration is going on. Anyway, regarding your edits to Acharya S, Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Ragib 17:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ask
I asked Charles MAthews if I may continue to edit. THis I did today, as Ive never had issues with Wikipeida before. I may also ask you. I continue to edit it because I do not think that this is wrong, btu will stand aside, if you promis enot to allow her disiples to Bias the Encyclopidia.

Also, the alst one was not a Revert, it was a Bold Edit. I knwo you think this is a stratagy, ti snot. Please read the current artilce, tis not a revision of a former article.

And I have only two rverts int he alst 24 Hours.

At any event, I cannot allow them to make it a Propoganda peice, and all I ask is that yoyu also prevent this.

ZAROVE 17:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring on Acharya S
Please be more cautious in your editing of this article. If you continue to make aggressive reverts you may be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Rory 0 96 04:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't even know who that guy is, I've never edited that article in my life, and I don't have any bias towards it at all because of that. I don't know what you want me to do. -- Rory 0 96 05:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR block
You have been blocked under the three-revert rule for edits at Acharya S. The policy at WP:3RR makes this clear:


 * Chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee. This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside the 24-hour time period [...]

and waiting half an hour to make a fourth revert is precisely such 'gaming'; disguising one revert by an edit summary simply aggravates the element of gaming the rule.

I have blocked you for 48 hours, since this page shows your history of edit warring on the article. The other party has been blocked indefinitely for personal attacks.

Charles Matthews 06:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

block
You have been blocked for excessive reverts and edit warring to disrupt wikipedia, right after emerging from your last block. The duration of the block is 48 hours. --Ragib 21:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/ZAROVE case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comments
1. The ban from these topics is indefinite. Please note that your comments on my talk page thoroughly violate the terms of this remedy. You are not to comment about her anywhere on Wikipedia or you will be reverted and blocked; this includes talk pages. This will be your only warning about this; if you have something you must say about the case that would violate this ruling, email an arbitrator.

2. You may appeal via email to Jimbo; also, if you email any arbitrator it will be passed on to the list. However, I strongly doubt that the restriction will be lifted. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimbo's address, as listed on his user page, is jwales@wikia.com; the addresses of the arbcom are listed at WP:AC. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for forty-eight hours
As you obviously recognised when you edited Talk:Acharya S, you can be blocked for up to two weeks under the ban in your arbitration case. On this occasion I have blocked you for forty-eight hours, time enough for you to contemplate your position. You're welcome to come back and edit any article page or talk page not related to Acharya S, as long as you don't introduce the subject from which you are banned. It's only on this topic that you're banned. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)