User talk:Seresin/Archive 12

Farmers Market (band)
The article on Farmers Market (band) seems to have been deleted (speedily?). Any way to restore it? The band is one of Norway's most recognized and well-known jazz bands. If the article was lacking, I can try to improve it. --Kvaks (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

History tab
What if it was renamed "Don't click this button!" - thus ensuring all casual editors would hit it out of sheer curiosity and therefore would find out what it did? --Allemandtando (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine the tab would be too large. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For lending some common sense to the issue. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmm. I'm not sure if you really wish to thank me; I was prepared to let your block stand, even if Edokter should not have been the one to impose it. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask why? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because after a protacted debate with Edokter about several things, and finally about alphabetization, you went to a style guide and decided to change it from what it has said for a long time to what you insist is correct. While our BOLD policy clearly allows this, you were reverted; under BRD, you are then required to discuss, not to revert back to your version, which is clearly contested. The fact that you would do that, which of itself is problematic, moments after a debate with another editor about it, is disruptive, and you were blocked for being disruptive. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Though I will note that after being told that no such guideline existed, I went looking for it. When I found something similar, I made a bold edit, seeking change. Now, if you are a member of a certain wikiproject where such occurs, you are going to immediately classify the edit as disruptive. However, it wasn't meant to be such. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
Hello. I noticed you close AfDs often. Well, I was wondering if closing the above as "keep" would be appropriate. Thanks, RyRy (talk ) 04:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You would probably not run into any problems at all closing it as keep, no. Personally, however, I would be inclined to agree with Spartaz that no actual evidence of notability has been proven, only dogmatically asserted, and therefore guidelines trump numbers, but closing that as a delete or merge would be questioned immediately. And, for accuracy, I don't close AfDs all that often, I just happened to do a few today on a whim. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I simply just looked at your contributions, and saw some AfD closures in your last 500 edits, not very many though. Anyway, I did notice Spartaz said and it does seem true to what came up. But yes, a close as "merge" or "delete" would seem very unlikely, but there isn't any choice left. I'll close the AfD. Thanks for your help. :) -- RyRy (talk ) 04:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Firefox 3
If the freezing on Vista is caused by Data Execution Prevention please see this Forum Mozillazine - Random Firefox 3 Crashes- Vista Data Execution Prevention Kathleen.wright5 22:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but FFx rarely crashes, it just freezes. And I've never seen a notification about the DEP. Thanks for the help though :) seresin ( ¡? ) 22:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico
"Estado de Nuevo México" is another official name of New Mexico. Both English and Spanish are official languages in Enw Mexico (although English is generally used), similar to the situation in Louisiana where both English and French are official (although English is generally used).

Source: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jwcrawford/nm-con.htm

I will therefore re-insert my edits into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.41.192 (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And you will be reverted. Consensus is that there is no official language of the state. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:71.114.23.247
He was already advised to do so by several admins, has a long history of sockpuppeting and harassment of others. He has shown he doesn't care at all about our policies as he continues to do these things.

But I guess it's just a lost cause with him, so I'll just stick to cataloging his sockpuppet accounts, and reporting him to SSP.— Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 05:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, given his past behavior, I see no reason in unblocking him, have you spoken at all with the other admins who have dealt with/blocked him?— Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 05:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, I was hoping he might realize why it was not applical to unblock him, and hopefully 'reform/apologize for his past behavior'. After everything, I just don't see it happening anymore. No remorse at all.— Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 05:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is, he doesn't show that he's willing to learn from his mistakes.— Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 07:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying he was behaving appropriately, but that your edits were not. His block must expire, as he is an IP and we do not block those for long periods of time, as the person using them may change. (lies! :)seresin ( ¡? ) 07:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I'm sorry for acting the way I did, some times I just get frustrated I guess... Next time, if a user shows the same behavior this one has, I just won't bother; I'll warn, report, forget.— Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 07:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I will apologize for those who got innocently wrapped up in Freitas and Merkle's rat's nest of lies and deceit and the aftermath. But none of this would have happened if it were not for Sandstein, William R. Buckley and SteveBaker, all with vested interest in the article making more of it than it should of been. I also blame you two for not dedicating the time to research this case as it should be. My technology is being stolen by affirmative action. Freitas and Merkle, NASA and Cornell U are grooming Hod Lipson to receive credit for my work. Affirmative action, if ever used at all should only be used when discrimination has be documented to have occurred and not to cast false credit to historical events such as this to someone else. I have done nothing wrong to have my life's work stolen, be kidnapped and my life destroyed, house stolen and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, no hope for even survival now as the government continues a steady destruction campaign on my life going on twenty years now. At this moment there are two Quantico MPs that moved into my apartment downstairs, for example who deliberately play loud music to disturb me all the time continuously and, of course Chief Dean has ordered his cops to do nothing about it. If I complain I'm hauled into Potomac Hospital in a strait jacket as "paranoid" about the "self-replicator conspiracy". My legal fees are in the hundreds of thousands, my last girlfriend turned out to be a "swallow" after half a lifetime. How do you know these editors are not working for NASA and Cornell? Or the government? I had several editors who have gleamed some insight into this only to back off in fear. I am being buried, day in and day out, 24 hours a day seven days a week, year after year because you guys in the media can't, won't or are afraid to do your jobs, with all due respect. Playing the affirmative action card on someone totally innocent who did something wonderful is only being used here to steal the most important event since the dawn of time. There is no discrimination going on, I could myself be classified as a minority if I chose so it's affirmative action as excuse to discriminate against a minority. But there is deceit, lying, deception and lord high felony all through it and you have not researched it enough to even begin to know that. One does not use affirmative action to steal Leonardo da Vinci's credit for painting the Mona Lisa or the Wright brothers for the airplane or Neil Armstrong foot on the moon but this is being done here.


 * On crazy editors here: I find myself blocked for doing nothing and a bio attack in an article right when blocked. Time and again with large swaths of evidence deleted. They should have been permanently banned long ago as contentious seasoned editors, and nothing is more damaging to Wikipedia than that and you have the results here in spades. Buckley trolls, takes one side of the issue then switches, just to argue and wreak havoc and once he has an argument going and has his just reason to do so lays the insults and attacks on hard. He is also taken as "authority" there at Self-replicating machine and it is on his say alone the F-Unit article stays there and it should for the reasons stated. But, if I hit him hard to admins he has made it very clear that he will have it removed. One of his sockpuppets threatened that. He also threatened to sue me, I reported it, then he was blocked, attacked me time after time. He has not apologized or remedied and is harassing me there now in talk, go look along with SteveBaker who is well documented at ripping up F-Units after he blocked me for a war he started. why is Buckley back? why is not SteveBaker blocked and his advertising copy not removed on Adrian Bowyer? Special preferences to tenured long time editors is why, nothing more. These are sharp cons at this. I am certain they are sockpuppeting too, they just know how to do it with far more experience. I find it appalling that these two have not been blocked years ago. That is your problem, not me the victim. The truth on this case would be the best article for Wikipedia on this huge historical scandal. But media types get it wrong for perceived publicity, time after time. Wikipedia rules state that there is a reasonable exception to every rule here and I assert this is a time for that exception. Buckley and SteveBaker are simply involved with skulldugery.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.6.184 (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is absolutely not the place to fight your battles, online or off. Your hysterical screeds lambasting perceived malice from real-life people and Wikipedia editors will get you nowhere. If you have offline problems, there is recourse available to you; Wikipedia is not it. If you have problems on Wikipedia, accusations rife with bad faith, vandalism of userpages, attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry will solve nothing, and only result in your being blocked. Should you have legitimate concerns, you are fully free to instigate discussion on relevant talk pages about Wikipedia articles and nothing more. In such discussions, you are to remain civil, assume good faith, work collaboratively, and in this instance especially, provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Your current modus operandi is very quickly going to result in much longer blocks. I suggest you re-evaluate your actions before returning to Wikipedia. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not have "perceived" problems. And the problems were here at Wikipedia, some still are. My life and reputation are at stake and I will not tolerate stupid insolence that effects it. This is not child's play. I was not rude, day after day at first but there is a point that no one can take. You should take responsibility for the prior editors I encountered because all I want is a fair article. I can live with what's there but it is not accurate and absurd. And the copyright infringing book "Kinematic Self-replicating Machine" is still referred to and quoted in my name. This is trash journalism at its very worst. Also I was accused of "sockpuppetry" when it was not happening and got fed up with it, and being penalized for it. It is not wrong to have several accounts if you don't abuse. Anyway, I've said my piece (and see below) over and out.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.6.184 (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that you did abuse, in the diffs I showed, you used several accounts to push your point of view, not even confirming you were the same person in each of the accounts, but stating you were someone else in support of you. That is abuse.  Secondly, you are supposed to inform admins that you are creating another account, and thirdly, you were using the accounts to evade bans.— Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 06:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * After I was blocked improperly, done deliberately to harrass, you should know that by now if you did your homework, look at all those archived diffs, it is clear'' this.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Added to User talk:71.114.6.184 (as my IP naturally rotates) in response to Dædαlus's comments there:


 * Sir, that was before all these recent blocks. The first block I had was for "self promotion" which was disingenuous as I was only trying to propose up an article on "Independent Operability", a technical term for a type of self-replication used at the patent office. I am an expert on that and there should not have been a problem. I should not have been blocked, the editors (if I read Wiki rules correct) should either have accepted the idea or rejected it. Instead they deleted and blocked me. Granted I was not very good at it being a newbie and the block lasted a short while. But William R Buckley is also involved professionally in the technology and he is allowed to even showcase his replicator software every where. Why is he back anyway? He was blocked for threatening me and never resolved.


 * In the meantime the same cabal of editors hostile to me, clearly from that fraud Adrian Bowyer's camp put together this "Self-replicating machine" article instead which was my idea not theirs in the first place but named "Self-replicating machine" which is a ridiculous childish, unscientific name to call it because that only applies to man made entities ...I guess, maybe... who really knows they have never been able to define it to date, no real definition there because the term is too general.


 * Finally when it became clear that my sane way was going to prevail someone hacked the page (changed content display different to different editors in different locations and IPs after buffer purges). Suddenly there was an editor "RHaworth" who at that very moment popped up from nowhere, no talk with "Populus" deleting the entire article that we had been calmly finally getting to consensus on and put in a stub with very contentious content siting Freitas and Merkel's book "Kinematic self-replicating machines" we had agreed was a copyright infringement, coordinated with a pack of other reverters hitting right and left as I tried to revert the vandalism. BobPrime and FrankTobia who pretended as "good cops" to be doing consensus with me in talk I discovered later had been plotting with RHaworth all along on his talk page to kill the article completely. They were relentless.


 * Suspicious that he was the hacker, I went to his user page and saw a greasy haired guy with snow on his head with a threatening scowl (it's there now) and comments about "various articles I have hacked about". So I reported him in the talk pages of Self-replicating machines and said I was calling the police. That is when "Yamla" blocked me for "legal threats" and deleted huge swaths of talk to cover up the circumstances and disenabling me to diff (as a newbie) which is ludicrous! Yamla also said he did not see the scowling face at RHaworth's user page which is a lie caught dead in the act. That's when the tea party started because I am not going to put up with this idiocy. My public image is at stake and it is not going down on these idiots. Thousands of other people's jobs are at stake here. and I worked all my life building this and will not tolerate lies about me. This is serious business here. All of that is diffed above.


 * As for SteveBaker he's a psycho! We were discussing Adrian Bowyers and his two articles and three pictures on a device that he suddenly threw up that has no hope of ever self-replicating but further using the ideas in my patent to attain huge grants, who makes comments on his sites that he is out to bust capitalism. SteveBaker said "I came here to do jobs Americans can't do" which shows he is anti capitalist with Bowyers. Then he ripps up the F-Unit site to retaliate when my site was not the point of discussion, I was trying to stay away from it so I would not be accused of "self-promotion". Now particularly note this: after ripping up F-Units he unilaterally deletes the entries that allow you to revert the edits in the history page (just like Yamla, covering his tracks). All you have to do is go and backspace through the history there and you can see he did this, Yamla I'm not certain you can. The whole deal going on here is beyond absurd. All these idiots should be blocked for wrongly and maliciously blocking me. I have not had a peep of trouble anywhere else around Wikipedia as I edited much after learning how just to deal with this problem. Only here fighting malicious competitors and political hacks. I have said the above time after time and I'm very tired of being ignored.


 * I possess not one but two of the largest most important patents in nanotechnology, programmable matter, and "self-replication" as Wikipedia has idiotically chosen to call it. I formed the first "Nanotech" corporation way back in 1994 when few of these players were even interested in this technology. Right now due to these miscreants, the article is a joke. I agree I am not a textual genius but I am here learning, getting practice so they have little to gripe about my abilities in that if they continue to block me like this. Someone else can write the article but I will tell you right now the ones doing it now know not what they do at all and are working for special interests. I know this because I do this business, have been for thirty five years hands on. No one one editing right now there has ever touched a "self-replicator" as they call it much less worked at length with one for years. It is a lie when it says "the only published material" is what is cited there now because, like I said I did a two hour radio show at prime time, broadcast world wide on WJFK on this and an independent operating device was presented at the time to the biggest FM station in Washington DC there and Larry King took a call in on the kidnappings at Quantico (I have tapes of both and so does Library of Congress).


 * All this is diffed in detail above and there is nothing otherwise before this started that any one has or can diff so unblock me right now, I'm really getting tired of this stupid idiocy. Further, block the culprits and remove all traces and references to "Kinematec Self-Replicating Machine" book with the copyright infringements. My god! This is the most important article in Wikipedia, where is the professionalism? Sir.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.6.184 (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.120.11.200 =  Mr.  Collins.   Can you lock these  articles to anon edits?Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re
For the record, someone suggested I start the XfD. It was not my original idea. I like to go with the suggestions of established editors for better or worse. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 23:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note for Seresin: Calling my patents "patent cruft" (by "Sandstein") was what started the F-Unit wars in the first place, years ago. FYI

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.11.200 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No sir...
it is YOU who should be blocked from editing due to your clearly ignorant mind set towards then greatness and accomplishments of the hero of our time that is Travis McBride. The man has done more in 3 seconds (destroyed planets) then you will ever in your entire life. If you are jealous he gets a page and you do not... clearly you should be banned from editing sir.

get your shit straight before you go around deleting serious articles all willy nilly! good day sir!

--Tjmcbooes (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not re-add the page. It is blatantly inappropriate. Should you re-add the page, you will be blocked from editing. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Trish PUMA
Yes my user page held a PUMA page because I was told by an Admin to store it there, work on it and then publish it.--Trish PUMA (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He probably meant for you to store it in a subpage of your userpage, not your userpage itself. However, this probably wasn't specific and is thus not your fault. As for working on it, the article discussing what was on your userpage already has a section in an article: People United Means Action. An article about the PAC was deleted, as the PAC currently does not have requisite notability to merit inclusion. You may wish to focus your time and energy on that article, as while the PAC itself may become notable, it is not now. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

PUMA title
I moved it because the title was incorrect as it stood. If consensus should decide that it should be listed under "Party Unity, My Ass" or "PUMA PAC" that's fine too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OMBcom
The edit war had just restarted when another user placed the rejected banner on the page. Considering this proposal is not concluded, it is unfair on those involved to see the proposal rejected. The unprotection was requested by the same user who placed the rejected banner, and therefore that was a sure sign that this war was not over. Hence its reprotection. By the way, I am completely uninvolved in OMBcom, so I could not fail to be impartial; I just happened upon it at WP:RFPP. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  10:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is hardly restarting the edit war, it was one revert, and protecting is not pre-emptive. Blocking might be a better option if editors are engaging in an edit war. In addition, the proposal has been resoundingly rejected. I am leery of the influence of IRC here. seresin ( ¡? ) 10:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly an influence; IRC is dangerous, but only when secret discussions go on in an attempt to deceive the Wikipedia community. There was no such deception here. If you disagree strongly with my decision, overturn it. I'm completely uninvolved; I've never commented on the issues at all. This is testament to my impartiality. Besides, it wasn't really pre-emptive if the edit war had happened shortly before, for an almost exact (although opposite) reason. I would not consider it a wheel war if you unprotected it, and I certainly would not reprotect it. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  10:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected it and left a full explanation on my talk page. Again, apologies for any confusion (and the unprotection was my own decision; this matter has not been discussed on IRC by myself since I first protected it. There's no way to prove that but I see little reason to lie to you). Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  11:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ME
You need to return to BIGNOLEs page and restore the violation warning. He violated WP:NPA and when warnig was placed on his page he immediately removed it. The attacks are on my talk page.Swampfire (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made no comment on Bignole. Only your behaviour, which is unacceptable. Editors may remove warnings from their own talk pages. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SO you are telling me that it is acceptable for him to violate WP:NPA. I want this on record. Because the proof is on my page.Swampfire (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have noted to him that his comments were inappropriate, and asked him to remain civil. I suggest you all disengage from that discussion. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also how am I being the difficult one when I provide facts, and he is the one basing things on assumptions without facts. And keeps coming back to my page without facts, but with assumptions.Swampfire (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BIGNOLE has now started trying to follow me around. He even went to the page you nominated for deletion and made another personal attack . What are you going to do about it. He called me a plagarist and a thief. I suggest you do something about him. The list was not plagarized. It was a list that was started on here on Native Americans of the United States. Then once it had more added to it. Lists were found and cited. So are you going to say anything to him about his attacks? And yes it was an attack against me. Because i created the list. I did as you aksed and did not return to his page or discuss anything with him. But you can clearly tell he actively followed me and attacked. On a deletetion page of a subject he had never been too. So are you going to now do something? In fact he has now returned to the page up for deletion to comment futher, not against the page but against me. He is the one following me and won't stop. ARE YOU going to do anything?Swampfire (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Native American list
Given that it plagarizes this page, not only in its choice of names but in its descriptions of each of the individuals...do you think it's a better candidate for speedy deletion?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See he even came here and tries to say something that was taken from a list already here in wiki on a page. Then combined with other stuff (of which they were cited) and tries to call me a plagarist. The main point of plagarism is when you try to pass something off as your own. Something thatwas never done especially since references were cited. He just doesn't get it. Can you PLEASE do something about him.Swampfire (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you will go to the Afd page you will see who was the on being difficult in the discussion between me and him. And hopefully do what is right.Swampfire (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Check out his contribs. He has never had anything to do with this list of Native Americans. And yet his first post TODAY after being offline for 10 hours was here . I know what he did you placed a link that put it up for deletion, in my talk page. So Once he signed in it is obvious he went directly to my talk page, then went straight there, to start an new arguement after he was warned yesterday for violating WP:NPA against me. You can plainly see from his contribs that he actively sought me out, then chose to try and start something else with me.Swampfire (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread
I have started an ANI thread regarding a user you recently warned at Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rudget
Thanks for the earlier revert on my userpage. Much appreciated. Rudget  ( logs ) 17:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of NeoSENS
I note you signed off on the deletion of that page. Insufficient discussion took place and no opportunity for improving the article was provided. prometheus1 (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was open for an entire week, two days longer than the normal time allotted, there was indeed sufficient time. Consensus was that despite your assertions, the article violated our original research policy by synthesizing information. If you believe you can correct that problem, I will restore the content of the article in a subpage of yours so that you may work on it there. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no synthesis of information as the article reported and summarized the extensive and long running discussions that took place in 2005 -2006 in online fora. The article reports a legitimate point of contention that was made at that time.The references were placed there to support the assertions made from the original forum postings and the very references are sourced from the original forum postings. prometheus1 (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus in the AfD was that your statements were not correct, and that the article was original research. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Did anyone bother checking the references to the online forums to confirm that the article was not synthesis but in fact reported on the proceedings from the said forums? prometheus1 (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidently not. This should have occurred prior to a decision being made. The so called consensus was reached by two parties only, one of which claimed that online forums are not a reliable source of information. The second party made no explanation whatsoever in support of their opinion to delete. prometheus1 (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An online forum is by no means a reliable source. And Shinmawa explicitly stated that he checked the references and agreed with the nomination that the article was synthesis. T-rex did as well. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion : Swarupananda
Sir, I suddenly found the an article about my spiritual guru, which I hav created was deleted by you. I still do not understand what type of authenticity you want. He is a spiritual guru from India borned in Bangladesh and more than 5 million followers exists in India. Most of his works for the poor and needy people. He able to create a few ashrams and more than 100 books published in India (all in Bengali). However, you can found a glimpse by reading this "Dr. Virginia Moore wrote a book entitled The Whole World, Stranger (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1957) about her six-month trip around the world with her sister, Nancy. Judging from the book contents, this trip probably occurred in the January - June 1955 or 1956 timeframe. It was an effort the two sisters hoped would, in some measure, round out their western, partial experience in the world and teach them much which they did not know about Asia. The trip included stops in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Bali, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, India, Ceylon, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Greece. Dr. Moore, who held a PhD from Columbia University in philosophy and religion, was committed to studying the art, philosophy, religion, and meaningful human relationships in each of those countries.

In earlier years, Moore spent considerable time with Carl Jung and his wife in Switzerland, and Jung's interest in Indian religion was of great interest to her. Her copy of his Pschology and Religion, which is based on a lecture series Jung presented at Yale University in 1937, is full of notes written by Moore about Eastern versus Western religion. It is not surprising then that Moore and her entourage found India intriguing. They spent every waking hour of their India visit out among the people, learning as much as they could about Indian philosophy and religion. During a boat trip from Calcutta to the holy city of Banaras (now called Varanasi), Moore found the thousands of people swarming in and along the Ganges River fasciinating. As she knew from her studies, Hindus believed that the Ganges was both clean and cleansing. Dr. Moore remarked to Chakravorty, her Brahmin guide, that as a protestant, she felt very at home in India. She rued that she might never would have an opportunity to talk to any living holy men. The attentive Chakravorty paused momentarily before responding, "I shall take you to talk to one." In her book, The Whole World, Stranger(pp 166-170), Dr. Moore provides the following account of meeting Sri Sri Swami Sarupananda Paramhamsadevji Maharaj in Banaras, where he was spending the week."

I therefore, request you if you kindly reopen the page I shall be highly obliege. I am trying to do something for my spiritual guru and nothing elses. With regads —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minikuti (talk • contribs) 12:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because consensus at this discussion was that while the subject of the article may have been notable, it was not very clear, and it lacked any reliable sources to verify the claims made in the article. Should you believe that you can address these concerns, by showing how he is notable (which on Wikipedia means significant coverage from multiple sources independent of the subject) and verifying these claims with reliable sources (not ones that are self-published, and ones that can be considered factual), then you may recreate the article. Should you want the content from the deleted article to work with, I'll restore it in a subpage in your userspace so that you may work on it. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_Country
Hello, when you closed Dragon Country into the TW article, I think you: Are you wanting someone to do the actual merger or am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually performed a redirect rather than a merge
 * Redirected to a target that no one in the AfD proposed.
 * I asked DGG for clarification as to what he suggested to article be merged to. I redirected them to the playwright's page as a temporary measure until I knew what DGG had in mind. He's answered me, so I'll do that now. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks 00:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
For this - I thought I was blocking a grawp puppet. I realized my mistake quickly and corrected it, but sorry for any disruption it might have caused for those 30 seconds. Frank |  talk  01:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * : O WP:RFAR here I come! Not a problem. Mistakes happen. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Turner Falls Road Bridge
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Turner Falls Road Bridge. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Polaron | Talk 03:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly suggest that you may want to consider if standing on process is the right approach in this matter. You're seeing an overwhelming consensus to overturn these deletions. You might want to consider graciously acceding to that. ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly standing on process. I was the one who deleted out of process, remember? I thought I already acquiesced to overturning and undeletion. I suppose my comment wasn't explicit enough. The DRV can be speedy-closed and the deletions overturned. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lifebaka has already done so. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your deletion was out of process, IMHO. You then used process based reasons to try to defend it, again IMHO. I missed where you said the DRV could be closed and the deletions overturned, but I'm glad you did so, and glad the articles are back. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)