User talk:80.192.9.90

The additions made were to the reception area and were not maligned content. 2 reviews were added to make sure that this page reflects the actual reception of the book. Please consult other BLP to see that authors have both positive and negative receptions. To only allow positive reception is to propagate the site as advertisement rather than an actual biography. Please either revert back to the edits that were fair and accurate and/or at least include the reviews o were posted so that readers get a balanced perception of this book. Thanks!

Response: The review that was posted - in full! (not standard for Wikipedia) - was in the end reasonably favourable to the book's intent, but it contains errors of fact, inconsistencies, and emphases that vitiates both its usefulness and its good faith as a fair and accurate description of the book: its author has an axe to grind, since he has published a commentary on Menexenus that takes a different view. Wikipedia is not the place to have an academic discussion about minutiae of that kind; there are other suitable venues. The poster of the review, who is masked by a pseudonym "Arcadia123" and an IP that is no longer found, also stated that BMCR is a 'respected journal', whereas it is highly variable and has often been the subject of controversy: it is not a mainstream academic journal. "Arcadia123" stated that the author "claims that Socrates was mentally ill', which is a misrepresentation (potentially malign) of the suggestion that Socrates' 'voice' could be assigned to a fairly common condition of hearing voices. Those who wish to read the reviews of the book have been directed to a site on which they are compiled: the BMCR review in question is not included there, but is easily accessed as the poster well knows.

May 2022

Hello, I'm Mako001. I noticed that in this edit to Aspasia, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It was not a mistake. The removed content included meaningless opinions (no ancient historical figure can be "verified", all evidence is text-based) worthless citations of scholarly opinions that add nothing to the historical quest for Aspasia. 80.192.9.90 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Aspasia. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Aspasia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Patient Zero. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Werner Israel, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Patient Zero^talk 21:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---