User talk:Georganne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Original research/undue weight on the Sundance Vacations article

Hi Georganne, while I don't really like being in the position of defending a company like this, the stuff you're putting up isn't appropriate because no other reliable source has seen fit to publish it. If this is a notable or important incident in the history of the company, it should have been reported on by a significant voice. A blog or personal website doesn't really cut it unless it's the voice piece of a particularly well respected expert in the field. Is there a newspaper article, consumer watchdog magazine or other significant publication that has printed this information? -- Siobhan Hansa 19:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop simply reverting and instead discuss on the talk page. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason you won't participate in the discussion? -- SiobhanHansa 01:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with what Georganne posted, it is only fair to present all sides. There are many other articles with extremely questionable sources. --Baronvon 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies as I do not intend to vandalize any writings. I do intend, however, to have the truth about this company made public. Most of what I have submitted is so well documented that the company (Sundance Vacations) cannot dispute those submissions. So, in the alternative, they attempt to censor the Internet and that is dictatorship and unconscionable. If you don't "really like being in the position of defending a company like this" why do it? I find it curious that you use the phrase "a company like this." An unconscious admission, I wonder! I think Baronvon's comment above is very insighful and truthful.

That would be a good reason to clean up those other articles. Our (non-negotiable) policy is to present the significant views of experts in the subject. Somebody's pet peeve in a blog does not meet that standard. I'm not even sure the award itself is notable, but the criticism of it certainly doesn't seem to be unless there are other sources. Regardless of this, simply reverting without participating in a good faith discussion is disruptive editing. A discussion may find a compromise that improves the article significantly. -- SiobhanHansa 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would clean up the other articles except people with the same mentality and claim to authority as you repost them. There is no non-negotiable policy, almost everything presented on Wikipedia is a compromise. --Baronvon 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Georganne (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)== April 2008 == Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Prod/doc. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:14, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC) 13:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Prod/doc, you will be blocked from editing. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:13, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC) 03:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I am not very computer savy and I am ineptly attempting to protest an unwarranted deletion. My intent is not to vandalize, but to level the playing field and offer the traveling consumer documented information about the company. Again, my sincere apologies for any inconvenience but it is hard to comprehend why any one (other than Sundance Vacations' employees or advocates)would want such an informative article deleted???