User talk:Diza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It obviously is::See archive 1 for anything from October 2005 till April 2006.
See archive 2 for anything from April 2006 till end of Dec 2006.
See archive 3 for anything from Jan 2007 till end of Apr 2008.
See archive 4 for anything from May 2008 till mid Nov 2009. (created more than 12 articles)
See archive 5 for anything from Nov 09 till mid Jan 2012.

Internet censorship and The challenge to wiki admins: Many admins are great people and they do important work. sadly, some get distracted by over extending their powers over content or users.

Admin abuse of power = roaming wikipedia by delete first, ignore questions later. non capitulation may cause personal persecution.
Main method of abuse= articles can be deleted without debate or warning and on false pretenses, contesting this is possible using an automatic link that is invalid, or another procedure that will not be explained or helped with. arguing your case is done without access to the deleted material. your entire debate can be erased on various claims. Before a deletion vote, the initiator might destroy portions of the article to validate his claim on the non-merits of content. When confronted, admin peer groups will tend to stick together against a non-admin "outsider"s. This process can take x40 times what was used to create the content. much like the real world, capitulation and inner-political diversion seems to be superior tactics to pure reason.

if you're an admin you can Change this by being the change! WP:ANI

2012 is the year of massive change

Smile, it'll deceive your mind to rationalize about it

Areas of Research[edit]

Sorry, I've just noticed that you contacted me more than a year ago about my area of interest. To answer you, my main interest is in theories of consciousness, and in particular the noticeably unpopular area of quantum theories of consciousness. Please contact me again if you want to discuss this or have a look at www.quantum-mind.co.uk.Persephone19 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude. you have no idea. bare with me,
Im sitting here high and meditating. waiting for a ride to a debate session (Israel just won the World Championship), thinking about how a person can move mountains with his mind. Then I recalled an easier way to describe it as divine serendipity. as Initiating coincidence. creation through allowing, vs by doing. This is truly magical. When I'm on a good "energy" everything just happens of it self. similar vibration in God attract. this can be humans(dates,biznes dev), thoughts to thoughts making ideas,cultures attracting inhabitants..bio-molecular ancient bacteria at the base of this whole gayan mind. Did you know that most of the mass in our bodies don't have humans DNA? .. memes evolving in non-local space. spiritual humans?
anyways, the "speech" I was giving in my head while waiting to go was on creating these magical serendipities...and then I snapped out of it, return to firefox tab that was reloaded...and there was your message.
So, Namaste, love and ..Miracles happen everyday !. We are God.
I hope this answers your question :) --Procrastinating@talk2me 16:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:E-dologic_logo.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:E-dologic_logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary move[edit]

Please see Talk:Low-frequency collective motion in proteins and DNA‎ Dankarl (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Philip Schneider[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Philip Schneider, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 17:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is silly and quite disappointing. The article was deleted in the past after a NEUTRAL vote was cast, with no majoriry for the deletion. Moreover, the article has been recreated with other content by other users. Having erased an article in the past (for no good reason) is no reason to re-erase it it the future. Since now, it's gone (again, with no deleltion vote) all content has been lost. again. I fail to see why some people seem to have nothing better to do than to destroy articles instead of bettering them.--Namaste@? 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Money as Debt for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Money as Debt, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Vote failed, 11:1. the initiator found no voices. The article is kept.--Namaste@? 23:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Kilowatt hour[edit]

Naturally I agree that the term "kilowatt hour" can be confusing, which is why the article contains a section about how the (almost always incorrect term) "kilowatt per hour" is sometimes mistakenly used instead. But could you please use the talk page to explain this edit, with emphasis about why the current version is confusing for you? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

sure.--Namaste@? 23:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.[edit]

Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.

Due to your past contribution to Technological utopianism, you may currently want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.

I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:

Loremaster says he is:

"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."

Loremaster wants people to:

"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."

Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:

"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."

81.151.135.248 (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)JB

  1. LOL
  2. Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism or Singularitarianism articles. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding the former article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
  3. I find it disgusting that 81.151.135.248 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
  4. In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It does seem strange that he bothered so much, yet not registered a user name.
I still fail to see the conflict. Your personal faith's and agendas should both help to facilitate a more Neutral point of view, which is non biassed yet all encompassing.
Do not censor each other, rather built a "criticism" section. just remember that an article should have relevant information about the phenomenon, not mainly it's criticism.. at which LoreMaster have also sinned, adding the adjective "small".
If both can vow to participate in such a way, I can help find a compromise.
Currently are there any missing sections?--Namaste@? 14:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I've seen you have previous interest in the article, your contributions to the discussion (on the talk page) would be welcome. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you made a recent edit to Terence McKenna (labelled him a 'psychonaut', which I thought quite appropriate) but marked the edit as minor. You may want to review WP:MINOR. Even small content edits (like adding one word) aren't considered minor. Thanks. PYRSMIS 20:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Maybe since I wrote most of the intro to his article I thought this one word to be minor :) -Since you are a co-fan, maybe you would know where can I find the current time wave graph?--87.68.146.84 (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Orgone[edit]

Please add your opinions re. bias to the talk page. Add citations if you can. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Systemic corruption[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Systemic corruption has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable and not even worthy of Wikionary because it is too vague. This article has been deleted previously (and recently).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


I agree. Starting a new stub with a single sentence and no references, with an edit summary "important article for the wikipedia community to write" just dumps work in our laps. I strongly suggest that you write it. It's like putting an apple on a table with a note "An important piece of fruit for somebody to spend time baking into a pie" Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the articles you've started, you have a bit of a pattern of creating single sentence, unsourced stubs, and then walking away. Please consider actually writing them and sourcing them. This would really help the community. Thank you and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting an apple on the table is moving us a step forward towards a pie. sometimes all you need is a stove, othertimes, people find other ways to cook. I will elaborate. hope you can join. --Namaste@? 02:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten-stare.jpg

d

Namaste@? 11:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charlie Veitch[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Charlie Veitch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

edit article "Cold Fusion" Refefences to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes[edit]

To improve the article:

1) Wiki needs to view it as science.

2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics.

I predict a tremendous increase in the readability of the article.

Query to the Scientific Community: To the Directors of Physics Departments,

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear; historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

1) Is this science or pathological science?

2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.

3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?

4) What peer review journals do you source in this field?

Diza, P>S> 1) Any suggestions or criticisms before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value? Thank you for your time, Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702--Gregory Goble (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


If I understand your suggestion by the title, then I concur. just do it on a single, well documented edit. Regarding your questions, AlienScientist made a video called "the holly grail of physics", which is the best synopsis on the web for this information. My prediction is viable reactors on mainstream understanding within 6-18 months...--Namaste@? 00:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Claims of free energy devices[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Claims of free energy devices. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Free energy suppression. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Free energy suppression - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Rklawton (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight

  • On the next day after the entire wikipedia website was shutdown due to planned internet censorship by the US FED, you erased an article about censored infromation.
  • you did this without any warning, debate or cencent from anyone. a merge tag would have been more suitable.
  • the link you provided for contesting the after-the-fact- destruction of work is invalid.

It seems to me like YOU are the SOPA agent that the entire wikipedia community is against. SHAME on you. please undo your act, or you will be reported for an abuse of power. --Namaste@? 20:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

First, try to calm down. Canvassing multiple talk pages is a violation of WP:CANVASS, and unlikely to end with your desired outcome.
From what I can see in the datestamps, the article Claims of free energy devices (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) was deleted before the WP blackout, not during it (as some of your posts are claiming). Also, the deletion appears to have followed Wikipedia policy as outlined at WP:SPEEDY; claims of abuse would only be supported if the deletion was done outside of standard policy.
If you want to file a complaint against specific admins, you can post a calm, civil discussion at WP:ANI. If you want the content restored to your userspace, you could also ask at ANI for that to be done. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Update, it appears that Willking1979 (talk · contribs) has userfied the material at User:Diza/Claims of free energy devices. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We should also note that I didn't delete the article, and that you have a lot of apologizing to do on the various pages where you claimed I did. I'd be satisfied without these apologies if instead, you simply refrain from canvassing and incivility in the future. Rklawton (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

True- The article was deleted by another admin, I shall not mention, so I apologize. Rklawton only reported it to me after the fact, and didnt restore it. FYI, I do not have access to an article that was deleted, only admin have the power to restore and destroy. restoration to my user page was after my request, seeing I have no access to it.
I don't know about the "standards" of a one-handed speedy deletion, but this seemed rather uncivil to me. I find incinivily at destroying people's work on whims of cataloging. I might not mind a merge of articles, but this should be discussed, not reasoned on ruins. I have restored it from my user page. please, let's write articles, not get into fights. big day for the internet today :)--Namaste@? 23:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "one-handed speedy deletion". It has been deleted twice; in both cases, nominated for deletion by one person, then deleted by an admin after they reviewed the nomination. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Incivility[edit]

If you persist in your incivility, you will find your account blocked from editing. Rklawton (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any ill accusations. but, seeing the re-deletion of the articles only took 2 minutes...again without any discussion, I guess your definition of civil-conduct or what admins shoudl be doing to facilitate positive work are different than my self. this article does no harm to any other. if mergable, let the community of interest decide so. I', really not here to do all these fighting, I find them degrading.23:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Claims of free energy devices[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Claims of free energy devices has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andrew Kurish (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I cant, they keep deleting it without discussion...took only 2 minutes, it's hard trying to keep up --Namaste@? 23:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Claims of free energy devices[edit]

A tag has been placed on Claims of free energy devices, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Page was recently CSD'd, I believe for being an unneeded content fork. Creator just recreated after original was userfied. Info can be found at other articles such as perpetual motion, among others

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Noformation Talk 23:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with my screen, or is this template not working? the button to contest, where is it?.--Namaste@? 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The button to contest the nomination for speedy deletion was on the article page of Claims of free energy devices, before it was deleted. The speedy deletion process is, as its name suggests, very fast, so you likely missed it. Speedy deletion is reserved for new articles which violate Wikipedia:Policy to such a degree that they should not be included, or would require substantial work to meet inclusion requirements. If you would like to improve the article, a copy has been maintained at User:Diza/Claims of free energy devices. You may want to look through the new article creation wizard for help on how to create an article that meets the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, or need further assistance, you can reply here or leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --timrem (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please use WP:DRV to contest a deletion[edit]

Please use the discussion page at Wikipedia:Deletion review instead of immediately recreating a page to ask for a page to be undeleted. Also, if you continue to levy bad-faith accusations against people, and continue to personally attack others as you have done repeatedly (for example, by implying that people have made a financial gain or other personal gain by deleting your article, a plainly rediculous claim) then you may be blocked for disruption. Please keep a level head, keep your tone neutral, and explain your case in an even-handed manner. If you continue the way you are going, you will not have satisfaction. The only chance you have to "win" in this case is to be civil and calm and make yourself the more mature, better behaved, and more eloquent person. Raging as you have done has never, in the history of Wikipedia, ever worked for anyone. You won't be the first. --Jayron32 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I made no claims to personal profits of alleged deletion agents of article. if a bunch of admins say screw free energy, than so be it.
I have however a more constructive approach to my usage of wikipedia, trying to either read or write articles. never destroy them. what good does that do? never understood nor cared for the poltical side of wikipedia.
I for a 5 mintues contribution on these "taboo" subjects get punished by having to argue my case for x20 that time.. on some page no body shared to link, on content no body cared to make accessible (deleted). I find this entire procedure ugly, and completly not-helpful. it's not like an extra artcile that has been around for 24 hour will hurt any one. it's your war. I opt out.--Namaste@? 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
You called an administrator corrupt. If you don't know the meaning of a word, you shouldn't use it, and regardless, you shouldn't call people names on Wikipedia. It causes you to lose whatever credibility you are trying to have in an arguement. If you genuinely are interested in winning or being right, then don't personally attack others. Doing that always causes you to lose. --Jayron32 15:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I know. yet since I felt like it was a losing argument to begin with, I spoke my mind. (he lied, and tried to deceive me from the begining) . Interestingly, even while I was being prosecuted (erasing other articles I was engaged with on ad hominem claims) I was still being accused of the thing "they" did...because after all, I am not the one who lied or erased articles on false claims.. I was simply the one who contributed to a taboo subject. being "right" has very little relevance in these situations. sometimes, some admins might be as corrupt as it gets, and if one can not address these issues, this just show more of the corruption.--Namaste@? 16:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Claims of free energy device[edit]

There was never a page at claims of free energy device. Could you please be more precise? J Milburn (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have moved the article in question (which was at a different title) to User:Diza/Claims of free energy devices. For what it's worth, the kind of rhetoric you're throwing about will not get you far. Wikipedia has its policies, and if you're writing articles that do not meet said policies (references to reliable sources, neutrality, etc.) then your articles will be deleted. This is no more censorship than a newspaper "censors" you if the editor decides not to publish your letter. J Milburn (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't since the page was deleted several times ...you can see my tiresome attempts in this discussion page above..--Namaste@? 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
That your page was deleted several times should serve as a hint that it doesn't meet guidelines for one reason or another. You were directed to deletion review, which is the correct venue in which to pursue this if you think that the page was deleted improperly. Noformation Talk 01:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a hint as to the adminship pursue to delete articles without any interference from the writing crowd. I was never directed to a page to pursue my protest (of a page that I can not access). maybe I just can't find it..always thought it be quite easy to put a template message with non-deceitful non-working links [[<click here to protest>]] --Namaste@? 01:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it's indicative of the fact that we have policies and criteria for inclusion. To be a sysop on WP you have to be a fairly experienced editor. How can you lecture the WP community on our rules when you're a new user? It doesn't make any sense. People who come here and try to force WP to accommodate them end up blocked or banned, and usually quickly. Keep in mind that you came to our community, we did not come to yours. If you're willing to learn the rules, assume good faith (this is not a request btw, this is a non-negotiable policy) and edit constructively then you are most welcome to settle in and join us, but audacity does not get one far here. Secondly, you have been told twice (aside from me telling you) about deletion review: once in a deletion edit summary (which you maybe missed) "(Procedural delete, otherwise no opinion. This should go to WP:DRV to contest the previous deletion" and on your very talk page and you responded to the post, so you can't really claim you didn't see it at User_talk:Diza#Please_use_WP:DRV_to_contest_a_deletion Noformation Talk 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not a new user, and have been an admin my self until these kind of "talks" have shown me the way of non-intervention. (like, to not seek to delete articles, rather to try and augment them)
I love to assume good-faith, but this was not the case. rules change, or the way users interact with the "rules" change. If all I needed was to debate the deletion (even after the fact) then why was I provided with an invalid link, by template? why are you repeatedly not providing one now?(feel free to assume I'm too novice to notice it in the endless pages of rules you sent me)
I sensed the negative-intention, and finally (sadly expected) persecution..I did not see any attempt to reply to any of the issues I have given. I have seen this pattern before many times. it's making me sad and tired..-Namaste@? 04:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Free energy suppression‎ are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Noformation Talk 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

here's a question. what do I do when an article is deleted on false grounds, and the admins try to deceive me in this War of Attrition by deleting deletion discussions and not giving me a space to either express my views or a method to access the contested deleted article. what you are doing is not helpful in educating me or solving this problem or it's causes.--Namaste@? 01:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
One solution would be to read the advice you are given. Look above, you have been pointed to WP:DRV to dispute the deletion, and to WP:ANI if you feel admins acted against site policy in the deletion. Is it really a surprise that when you ignore the advice for the correct routes, and instead try to canvass and soapbox over the issue, that you receive warnings about using the wrong avenues to address your concerns? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
i'm sorry, can you provide a direct link to where it is i should be protesting?--Namaste@? 01:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
As I wrote above, you were directed to deletion review by a deleting admin which is where one would pursue a review of a deletion they did not agree with. You need to drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality - if you go around accusing people of bad faith by accusing them of purposely trying to deceive you then you aren't going to last long over here. Wikipedia is a collegial, academic environment with a lot of well defined policies. Your article has been moved to your user space twice so I'm not sure why you're saying that you aren't able to access the article, it's there right now. Noformation Talk 01:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Gladly, you can access DR at Wikipedia:Deletion_review. Good luck! Noformation Talk 01:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The page you provided does not contain a direct link to where I should be protesting, not did the two templates with the "click here to protest" fake button I received. nor did any of the 12+ edits to my talk page by other righteous admins. I did not start this battleground, nor did megaupload. it's the people's lack of personal responsibility to provide any actual help to counter their destructive acts--Namaste@? 01:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The deletion review page linked above contains all the instructions for requesting a review. Why did you not read these instructions? Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
because it's longer than the entire article that was deleted. it does not contain the key words for the article, it's search does not return any relevant results, and because I was posted twice with a deceitful template claiming to contain such a link. and all this why? because some non-topic-contributer thought it'd be a good idea to merge an article, thus reasoned to immediately deleting it. besides, if you know how to do this, would it not been easier to link it here, rather to write so many-many-many words? I lost faith. --Namaste@? 01:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I see, so your answer, in short, is that the instructions are long and you couldn't be bothered to read them. Personally, I think you should find something else to do with your time. Rklawton (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If you're planning on contributing to WP get used to reading a lot of long policy pages. We have over 50 of them and while you'll likely not run into situations where all 50 will be applicable you are expected to read and understand many of them. Everything here is guided by WP:CONSENSUS, and consensus is formed by making arguments that appeal directly to WP:POLICY. If someone sends you a blue link that starts with "WP:" or "WIKIPEDIA:" then there's a good chances that it's something you should really read and understand. Noformation Talk 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I know about WP policies. I also know about human beings trying to deceive me, or them selves but providing arguments instead of help, and changing the subject instead of alleviating stress that they created. it starts with a FAKE "protest here" default button, goes through "argue your case without access to the article", and ends with endless correspondses arguing the rules and self-justification, rather than providing any minimal, much simpler or relevant help. Policies are written by this spirit are not made to facilitate positive change. you guys remind me of the douglas adams book claiming the plans to destroy the planet have been waiting for 300 years to be protested upon..--Namaste@? 02:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not interested in discussions with users who don't assume good faith and who make constant accusations so I will not be continuing. If you want to change your attitude I'm happy to come back and help but I'm not on WP to debate and argue, sorry. Noformation Talk 02:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
You have been repeatedly pointed to the appropriate pages. If you choose to ignore those links and instead demand that the community abandon its established processes in order to accommodate your arbitrary opinion on how things should work ... well, lets face it, that's not going to restore your article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Seeing I can't find it, and nobody will provide me with the link I would not call this help.. {{help me}}
Since nobody will address the issue (fake template links are deceitful by definition) either... rather opt to provide arguments at how evil I am for trying to write an article, my "arbitrary opinions", threaten to block me etc etc.. I see no point to this.
Also, Seeing that even my latest edit attracted the wrath of "deleltion" (took u guys 5 minutes?) of the entire article It'll be hard to assume good faith ..at the end you will win, and more articles will be deleted, and less people will write --Namaste@? 02:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Claiming that nobody will provide you with a link is patently false - it has been provided several times by multiple parties.
This is the link once more: Wikipedia:Deletion review <= (click the blue text). It is the established consensus established process to dispute deletion. Follow it if you want, or not, your choice. I don't see much point in discussing further, as you repeatedly ignore any provided assistance, make false accusations, fail to assume good faith, etc. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I have reviewed this link, and am lost. the best i could find was [1], but this has many warning as to the process of deleltion it self. I am no expert in this beurocracy, and as far as I recall there should be a specific page per article deleted..where is this page is beyond me. if any of you holders of secret know this, please point me to the specific link.(and fix the misleading template)... since now I am under attack from another admin (deleting the latest article I have edited), I am far beyond tired fighting this silly war of destroying articles on varying (personal) reasons. I hope you guys are enjoying your self.--Namaste@? 02:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It does not appear that you have reviewed the page we keep sending you too, because there is a section titled "Steps to list a new deletion review" that has the steps to list a new deletion review. If you do each step, in order, that will allow you to list a new deletion review. Please do that. --Jayron32 21:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You claim on your user page to be an "expert" user and a "near native" English speaker. I suggest you significantly downgrade both of these estimations as they are clearly untrue. Rklawton (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope I can return the favor and suggested tags for your own user page. either that or nominating your recent articles with a deletion tag. so many good intentions I have seen from you, hope I can learn them all
so is internet censorship really all about personal attacks by empowered users, wanting capitulation? how sad is the human story--Namaste@? 02:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Systemic corruption for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Systemic corruption 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemic corruption 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Noformation Talk 02:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

good timing, really helps with the good-faith part. I like the strategy, very old...erase half the article, then delete it on various grounds.
You can also delete the megavideo and SOPA article too. or you can just wait for my next edit, attack me there--Namaste@? 02:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If the half that I removed was still in there I would be astonished if there weren't delete !votes just based on that alone. It's a ridiculously huge NPOV violation. Noformation Talk 03:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If you are so sure that that segment is the problem, then why erase it and THEN vote on deleting the article?
What is the NPOV problem with the prison issue? it's a well documented fact and uncontested global civil anomaly.
wouldn't any examples insult some nationality (I assume you'r UK/US nationality) ? (thus making it POV biased) ?
isn't the "protest here" FAKE template that is currently being used in wikipedia a perfect example in this regard? (that will never be allowed to be documented as such from the same reason)--Namaste@? 03:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
(i) Because deleting articles isn't my goal, my goal to to make sure that articles are up to par and only then deleted if not. (ii) The paragraph and I and another editor erased presented opinions as if they were uncontested facts when that is not necessarily the case. For instance, in regards to illegal drugs one might be able to write that "In any case that a desired commodity is made illegal a black market will appear to fill the gap," but what one should write is "according to Tom Snider, a professor of economics at George Mason University, in the case that a desired commodity is made illegal there will be a black market to take its place." What you had written attributed an opinion to Wikipedia when only uncontested facts should be written in WP's voice.
Please, please drop the battleground attitude - we are not your enemies! I am here to make WP a better place as I'm sure you are as well, but as I said before this is supposed to be a collegial, academic environment and part of that means not bringing up your opinions of other editors - just discuss content and nothing else, topics rise or fall on their own merit not that of editorial opinion. Noformation Talk 10:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
good point. these points should be part of improving the article, or part of the talk page.
I remind you dear sire, that this article was nominated for deletion on grounds of a personal issue, immediately after I edited it...by the same person with the issue. I was even accused of writing it as part of the same discussion, going back months in time and reversing causality..:) . point being, I shall always assume good faith, unless otherwise persecuted. the delete-first-make-reasons-later policy is not conducive to writing better articles..IMO
it is an important subject, and I believe we can make an even greater article of it--Namaste@? 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK[edit]

Ok, let's try this again and let's work together - all I ask in return is that you stop making statements about other editors motivation and stop assuming that other editors are in any way out to get you, or so to speak. Actually, let me just request from now on that you never comment on other editors, and simply talk about content.

With the aforementioned in mind, how can I help you regarding your understanding of the deletion review process? Is there something specific regarding WP:DRV that you don't understand? Noformation Talk 10:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.
This has been my experience thus far.
I have compiled an article, that I felt was needed, and put time and effort to make it of the highest standard. anticipating collaborative work to improve it.
about a day later it was supposedly claimed it might be a good idea to merge it with another. On this retroactive claim, and against it's own reasoning the article was deleted without warning or discussion. no merge request was used. (first scream of injustice)
I have received a notification that I can protest this after-the-fact using <this link>, which did not exist. this fakery was and still is part of the template.(second scream of injustice)
To protest this, using the dead link, I needed the article, that was not provided to me, thus even theoretically I can not engage in any meaningful discussion of content. (third scream of injustice) I find this entire "procedure" deceitful at best.
Other admins jumped the gun and kept referring me to some rules "portal" that was longer and more convoluted than the entire article, instead of the actual page of protest...does it even exist..
I have received thousands of words, yet no real help. not a single "restore" action or a DIRECT link to deletion debate. It is my opinion that in order to provide just avenues, destructive acts should be balanced with some helping hand, not the illusion of such.
my protest, of course, being that the "reason" for deletion does not meet the criteria for the reason it self...how can an article be merged when it is erased. simple answer - it can't. this is retroactive logic.
Please. help me if you will, and more importantly please help the article.
also, If it pleases you, please help with making this procedure (and template) less violent and more pragmatic to the contributer. screams of injustice might hurt the ears a bit, but they hurt the heart of wikipedia more,and should be addressed.
thanks--Namaste@? 16:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

File:MyVoteLogo 1.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MyVoteLogo 1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:E-dologic logo.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:E-dologic logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Conscious Acts of Creation[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Conscious Acts of Creation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with Separation of money and state[edit]

Hello Diza

I've been following your edits with interest. I enjoyed many of the sources you posted that argue the Internet is enabling a new era of freedom and prosperity. Much like the printing press or writing, other technologies that reduced the cost of producing and distributing information, it is playing a key role for civilisation.

For that reason, I would like to direct your attention to the new article I am proposing to the community, Separation of money and state. It is a political claim distinct from free banking (which involves government authorization and enablement) and currency competition (which may exist inside an oligopoly of fiat legal tenders).

The claim is old, and is meant as a reference to the church/state separation. It finds its roots in the classical liberal idea, but has become increasingly cited following the debt crisis and the advent of decentralized/electronic currencies (such as Bitcoin).

I would greatly appreciate any contribution you might be willing to provide. The article needs more sources and examples connecting the two political claims (church/state vs money/state separation), or addressing their liberty-related common denominator.

Thanks!

Alfy32 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Money as Debt for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Money as Debt 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt (4th nomination) 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.